TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10,00,000/- under section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts are that the Appellant is an authorised dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Limited (MSIL) and Ashok Leyland Limited (ALL) and functioning as a seller and distributor of MSIL and ALL vehicles. The Appellant purchases vehicles from MSIL and ALL on principal-to-principal basis and sells them to the retail customers. MSIL and ALL charges inter alia appropriate Central Excise duty and Sales tax/ VAT on the sale of vehicles to the Appellant. Besides, the Appellant owns authorised service stations for repair and maintenance of MSIL and ALL vehicles as well as body shop for repair of accidental vehicles. The Appellant had entered into a Dealership Agreement dated 01.01.2010 was entered into between MSIL and Appellant. Similarly, a Dealership Agreement dated 23.01.2013 was entered into between ALL and Appellant. By the Dealership Agreement, certain arrangements have been entered into by MSIL with all its dealers, including the Appellant, for giving discounts, incentives, rewards, etc. The Appellant has a broader arrangement with MSIL, flowing directly from the Dealership Agreement, vide which MSIL agrees to pass var....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the following grounds which are independent of, and without prejudice to, each other. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and had been decided by the Tribunal in several of its decisions. Ld. Counsel contended that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the incentives/discounts reimbursements received from vehicle manufacturers under incentive schemes, as they are not consideration for provision of any services by the appellant to vehicle manufacturers. He relied on the case of Philips India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune [1997 (91) E.L.T.540 (S.C.)], wherein the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of trade discount claimed by the assessee from the assessable value for levying Central Excise duty charged by the assessee from its dealers in terms of their agreement, where the substantial portion of said 'trade discount' is represented by advertisement expenses and expenses on after sales services incurred by the dealers which were includible in the assessable value. On Appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the advertisement which the dealer was required to make at its own cost benefited in equal degree....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Commissioner in the impugned order had given a finding that benefit of cum-tax valuation is available only if the assessee intended to actually pay tax. Therefore, benefit of cum-duty cannot be extended to the Appellant. In this context, the Commissioner on in Amrit Agro Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex, Ghaziabad [2007 (210) E.L.T. 183 (S.C.)] However, ld. counsel contended that this decision was not applicable. 3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that extended period of limitation is not invocable, as there was no suppression. Consequently, the demand is time-barred., and the imposition of penalty and recovery of interest is not sustainable. He prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 4 Learned Authorised Representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. However, he conceded that the matter was squarely covered by the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. We have gone through the records and heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Learned Authorised Representative for the Department. The issue involved in the present appeal is about service tax demand from the authorized dealers of the vehicle manufactur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otion and marketing of the vehicles manufactured by MUL and such consideration is liable for payment of Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. By taking the above view, show cause notice dated 17.10.2011 was issued covering the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011. Further, show cause notice dated 09.10.2012 was issued covering the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012. The proceedings initiated under the above show cause notices resulted in the issue of two impugned orders, which are under challenge in the present appeals. Since the issue involved is common, these appeals are disposing of with this common order. 3. The demands have been raised by Revenue through the two impugned orders covering overlapping periods. Demand has been made under the category of Business Auxiliary Service for the amounts received by the appellant from M/s. MUL. Such amounts have been received towards incentives/discounts in connection with the sale of the vehicles manufactured by MUL. In addition, certain amounts have also been received by the appellant towards Registration/ Number Plate etc. to facilitate the buyers of vehicles. All the above amounts have been charged under BAS. C....