Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Indus Motors Company Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 19 February, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20272 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/29187/2013 in ST/28490/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/28490/2013-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Original Nos.064-13-14 and 065-13-14 dated 05/09/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax , Cochin] Indus Motors Company Pvt. Ltd. City Towers, M.G. Road, Ernakulam Kerala Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax C R Building, I S Press Road, Ernakulam, Cochin - 682 018, Kerala Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms Latha K, Advocate Chamber No. 454, KHCAA Chamber High Court of Kerala Ernakulam For the Appellant Mr Ganesh Haavanur, AR For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 19/02/2014 Date of Decision: 19/02/2014 Order Per: B.S.V. MURTHY The appellant is an authorized dealer of cars and accessories manufactured by Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd. The issue pertains to the period from 10/2006 to March 2011 and for 2011-2012. Besides demanding service tax, penalties under various Sections of Finance Act have also been imposed.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for quite some time and going through the records, we find that the issue before us is similar to the issue which had come up before this Tribunal on 13.02.2014. In the Final Order passed by us on that day after hearing the stay application we had allowed the appeal. The issue involved in that case was liability of service tax on purchase and sale of used cars by the appellant who is also a dealer of MSIL. On going through the records, we find that as noted by us in the case of Sai Service Station Ltd. in Final Order No. 20227/2014 dated 13.02.2014, the observations in paragraph 60 in this order are nothing but reproduction of observations in paragraph 55 in the case of Sai Service Ltd. by the Commissioner. For better appreciation both paragraphs are reproduced:
55. On a scrutiny of the financial accounts, summary statement/replies submitted by M/s. Sai and the data available with me, I find that M/s. Sai is engaged in the business of selling used/pre-owned cars belonging to their clients through their Maruti True Value Division under the MUL Dealer ship and provide services to handle, refurbish, promote or market pre-owned/used vehicles provided by their clients. It is observed that when a client comes to them for sale of his vehicle, they evaluate the vehicle according to certain norms specified by MSIL, based on the year of manufacture, condition of the vehicle and thereafter, fix a price after analyzing the above norms. If the said price is agreeable to the owner of the vehicle, they take delivery of the vehicle by issuing a Delivery Receipt specifically undertaking the responsibility of the vehicle till its being transferred to a new buyer and issue a Possession Letter as an evidence for taking possession of the vehicle, RC Book, Insurance documents etc. in original. At the time of taking delivery, they obtain signatures on blank Form-29 and Form-30 as prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act, for transfer of ownership of vehicle. After refurbishing and carrying out the required works as instructed by MSIL at their workshop, they display the vehicle at their used car show room, find a buyer and sell the same on a reasonable margin. The selling price includes management fees, free services and warranty. It is observed that their executives/representatives are engaged in doing first level of scrutiny of prospective buyers, i.e. identifying such clients who could then be pursued further for the deal, if the terms and conditions are agreeable to both. 60. On a scrutiny of the financial accounts, summary statement/replies submitted by M/s. Indus, and the data available with me, I find that the noticee is engaged in the business of selling used/pre-owned cars belonging to their clients through their Maruti True Value Division under the MUL Dealer ship and provide services to handle, refurbish, promote or market pre-owned/used vehicles provided by their clients. It is observed that when a client come to the noticee for sale of his vehicle, they evaluate the vehicle according to certain norms specified by MSIL, based on the year of manufacture, condition of the vehicle and thereafter, fix a price after analyzing the above norms. If the said price is agreeable to the owner of the vehicle, they take delivery of the vehicle by issuing a Delivery Receipt specifically undertaking the responsibility of the vehicle till its being transferred to a new buyer and issue a Possession Letter as an evidence for taking possession of the vehicle, RC Book, Insurance documents etc. in original. At the time of taking delivery, they obtain signatures on blank Form-29 and Form-30 as prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act, for transfer of ownership of vehicle. After refurbishing and carrying out the required works as instructed by MSIL at their workshop, they display the vehicle at their used car show room, finds a buyer and sell the same on a reasonable margin. The selling price includes management fees, free service and warranty. It is observed that their executives/representatives are engaged in doing first level of scrutiny of prospective buyers, i.e. identifying such clients who could then be pursued further for the deal, if the terms and conditions are agreeable to both. The above observations show that basically both the cases are same and since we have already considered the submissions and passed the Final Order on 13-02-14, following the precedent decision of this Tribunal, in this case also we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in court on 19.02.2014) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss