Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Rohan Motors Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Service Tax Appeal No.ST/58152 / 2013 CU [DB]
Date of Judgement/Order : 29.06.2018
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Rohan Motors Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Delhi)

A portion of the demand also has been raised under the category of GTA. The appellant has paid the freight expenses in connection with transportation of Cars to their customers. However, they have not issued any consignment notes which are necessary to identify the appellant as a goods transport agency. As per the views expressed by the Tribunal in the case of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. (supra), in the absence of consignment notes, the activity of the appellant cannot be classified under GTA service. Consequently, we set aside the demand under GTA service.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT 

The appeals are directed against the Order in Original No. 20/2013 dated 11.03.2013 as well as Order-in-Original No.66/2013 dated 07.11.2013. The appellant is a dealer of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (in short hereinafter called as “MUL”) in respect of the cars manufactured by MUL. As per the agreement with MUL, the appellant has received various incentives/ discounts / bonus etc. from MUL from time to time. The income received under these heads was accounted by the appellant in their books of accounts as miscellaneous income‟. During the course of audit of the books of accounts of the appellant, the Department noticed such Misc. income and took the view that such amounts received by the appellant from MUL are consideration towards promotion 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.

2. Explaining the grounds of appeal Shri B.L.Narasimhan, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted as follows:-

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031