SRI JAYALAKSHMI AUTOMOTIVES (P) Ltd. Versus CCT – Hyderabad GST
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 562 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 8-10-2018
ST/31199/2017 – A/31291/2018
Service Tax
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
For the Appellant : Shri Sudhakr R. Challa, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner /AR
ORDER
PER: MR. M.V. RAVINDRAN
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-SVTAXHYC- APP-004/17-18(APP-I) dated 31.08.2017.
2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration, after filtering out unnecessary details are that the appellants are dealers of M/s Hyundai Motors India Limited and are registered with service tax department for providing taxable services under the category of 'servicing of motor vehicles' and business auxiliary service. Basing on the allegation that the appellants have been receiving consideration under extended warranty from the new vehicle buyers and they are not offering
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
mmissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the amounts retained by them and hence held that lower authority was justified in confirming the demand of service tax as proposed. The case for irregular availment of input service tax credit was remanded to the original authority to consider the submissions made by the appellant which had not been considered during the adjudication proceedings. The appellants reworked out the service tax liability for the disputed period on their own on extended warranty and paid an amount of Rs. 1,68,538/- alongwith interest of Rs. 2,14,706/- and the penalty of Rs. 42,135/-. As the appellant was under the impression that they had discharged the service tax liability on amount collected but retained, they applied for refund of the pre-deposit of Rs. 9,90,794/- paid in accordance with the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The original authority after due process of law rejected the refund claim.
3. Aggrieved
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
that service tax liability is to be discharged on the amount retained by the appellant for the extended warranty extended by the appellant to various customers. He would draw my attention to various documents filed today, more specifically the ledger accounts of the appellants in respect of the extended warranty account and submits that appellant had transferred most of the amount to Hyundai Motor India Limited and only retained few amounts on which the service tax liability is Rs. 1,68,538/- and the interest is Rs. 2,14,706/- and penalty of Rs. 42,135/-. He would submit that this particular aspect is not being considered by the first appellate authority and the adjudicating authority and have wrongly rejected the refund claim as the appellant had deposited the entire amount during the proceedings itself on which the service tax liability as indicated herein above is to be only adjusted. It is his further submission that the entire show cause notice went on a presumption that the amou
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ained as is the conclusion of the first appellate authority in the Order-in-Appeal dated 29.07.2013. On perusal of the O-I-A dated 29.07.2013, I find that the first appellate authority in para 8 had categorically stated that service tax liability arises towards sale of extended warranty policies and entire sale proceeds were transferred to Hyundai Motors India Limited but he noticed that some amount is retained by the appellant. In the said para, the first appellate authority has categorically recorded that the retained amount being attributable to extended warranty policies, the amount retained by the appellant is taxable under authorised service station services and appellant is liable to pay service tax on the amounts retained with applicable interest.
This Order-in-Appeal dated 29.07.2013 was not contested by Revenue or appellant before the higher judicial forum. The plain wordings of the said O-I-A which was not contested by both sides, would mean that appellant herein is require
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =