2025 (11) TMI 1341

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impugned Order-in-Original [No.JOD-EXCUS-000-COM-0031-20-21 dated 31.03.2021] confirming the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.2,21,87,867/- on the main appellant [M/s. Audi Motors Pvt. Ltd.] under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 [The Act] read with Section 75 of the said Act along with interest and penalty of equivalent amount and further imposing penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on Shri Sawai Singh Purohit, Accountant of the appellant under Section 78 of the Act. 2. The appellant is an authorized dealer of M/s.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [MSIL] on principal to principal basis and also service provider of maintenance and repair of Light Motor Vehicles/Passenger cars etc. MSIL was giving incentive and trade discount to the appellants on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issue is no longer res integra and as referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the same has been considered and decided in favour of the assessee in the following cases : (i) Rohan Motors Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2021 (45) GSTL 315 (Tri.-Del.)] (ii) T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex., Madurai [2021 (55) GSTL 144 (Mad.)] (iii) B.M. Autolink v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2022 -VIL-900-CESTAT-AHM-ST] (iv) Roshan Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2022-VIL-654-CESTAT-DEL-ST] (v) Anand Motor Agencies Limited v. Commissioner of Customs [2022-VIL-116-CESTAT-ALH-ST] (vi) Kafila Hospitality and Travels Pvt. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the law laid down in those judgments. We have examined the dealership agreement entered between MSIL and the appellant and we find that MSIL is engaged in manufacturing, marketing and selling of motor vehicles and the appellant purchases the vehicles from the manufacturer as their authorised dealer. The relationship between the appellant and MSIL is only of buyer and seller and sale-purchase have taken place on principal to principal basis. 10. We also find that the activity undertaken by the appellant is for the sale and purchase of the vehicle and the incentives are in the nature of trade discounts. The incentives, therefore form part of the sale price of the vehicles and have no correlation with the services to be rendered by the ....