Bombay High Court
The Commissioner Of Service Tax Mumbi Vi vs Toyota Lakozy Auto Pvt Ltd on 4 September, 2018
Author: Riyaz I. Chagla
Bench: M.S.Sanklecha, Riyaz I. Chagla
S.R.JOSHI cexa-153-155-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.153 OF 2017
WITH
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.155 OF 2017
The Commissioner of Service Tax
Mumbai-VI .. Appellant.
v/s.
Toyota Lakozy Auto Pvt. Ltd., .. Respondent.
Mr. Swapnil Bangur with Mr. Vipul Bajpayee, for the Appellant in both the
matters.
CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER,2018. P.C:-
These two Appeals under Section 83 of the Finance Act (the Act) and 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenges the order dated 17th November, 2016 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal).
2 Revenue urges the following common questions of law in both the Appeals, for our consideration:
"(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT was justified and correct in setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities and allowing the appeal of the Assessee by not demanding service tax under "Business Auxiliary Services" on fee charged from customers for registration of vehicles with RTO?
(b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT erred in relying upon the decisions of the S.R.JOSHI cexa-153-155-2017 Tribunal in case of Jaybharat Automobiles Limited v.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai - 2015-TIOL-1570- CESTAT-MUM, Sai Service station Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai 2013-TIOL-1436-CESTAT-MUM, Tradex Polymers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad 2014(3) STR 416 (Tri- Ahmd) and GarrissonPolysacks Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Vadodara 2015(39) STR 487 (Tri-Ahmd) and on the decision in case of M/s. Aparnna Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise 2016 (43) STR-397 (Tri- Mumbai) whereby it was held that helping the purchaser with registration with the RTO cannot be considered Business Auxiliary Service and thus held that the service tax demand of the amount retained by the Assessee in respect of RTO registration fees is not sustainable and in case of Wonder Cars Pvt. Ltd., vs. Central Excise, Pune-I, 2016-TIOL-190-CESTAT- Mum and set aside the demand.?"
3 As it is evident from the questions as proposed, the impugned order allowed the Appeal of the Respondent by following numerous decisions of its Co-ordinate Bench on the same issue.
4 Mr. Bangur, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, seeks time to take instructions from the Revenue as to fate of the orders relied upon by the impugned order of the Tribunal i.e. whether the same has been accepted by the Revenue or not, if not, whether any Appeal has been filed and the result, thereof.
5 Needless to state the State must accord equal treatment to all the Assessees.
6 At the request of the Revenue, these two Appeals are adjourned to 18th September, 2018.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)
Digitally signed
Smita by Smita
Rajnikant Joshi
Rajnikant Date:
Joshi 2018.09.06
16:39:24 +0530