Em Pee Motors Ltd. Vs. Cce

Em Pee Motors Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 24, 2008

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46886

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/46886
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Jha, J T T.K.
Decided On: Jan 24, 2008
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Em Pee Motors Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)10STR481

Excerpt

.....of the taxable services rendered. it was explained by the ld.counsel that for purposes of tds, the bank takes an amount of rs. 10,000/- per vehicle as commission paid to the appellants. but actually, an amount of rs. 8,000/- is paid to the customers directly by the bank and the amount received by the appellant is only rs. 2,000/-.in respect of the above amount, the appellant had actually discharged the service tax liability. the case of the revenue is that the entire amount taken for tds purposes should be taken as the gross amount for the service rendered. if this view is taken, there will be short payment of service tax. hence the proceedings were initiated. in terms of the impugned order, appellant is required to pre-deposit the following amount: 2. ld. dr stated that this issue is squarely covered by the tribunal's decision in the case of cce, jaipur-i v. chambal motors (p) ltd. and ors. reported 3. on the other hand, ld. counsel informed the bench that the gross amount received for the services rendered is completely different from the amount taken for tds deduction. the amount paid by the bank directly to the customers is not part of the gross receipt received by the appellant. this amount is not liable to service tax. therefore, he said that there is no short payment at all. moreover, it was stated that the appellant had already deposited rs. 2 lakhs towards service tax and rs. one lakh penalty. hence there was request for waiver of the balance amount of service tax.4. on a careful consideration of the issue, we find that prima-facie, the appellants have a strong case in their favour. as they had already deposited rs. 2 lakhs towards service tax, and rs. one lakh towards penalty, the above amounts can be treated as pre-deposit and the balance amount of service tax and penalties is waived till the disposal of the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants are rendering Business Auxiliary Services. They canvassed customers for the Bank who would finance them for the purchase of vehicles. In this arrangement, the appellants get the remuneration for the service rendered. There is a dispute as to the value of the taxable services rendered. It was explained by the Ld.

Counsel that for purposes of TDS, the bank takes an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per vehicle as Commission paid to the appellants. But actually, an amount of Rs. 8,000/- is paid to the customers directly by the bank and the amount received by the appellant is only Rs. 2,000/-.

In respect of the above amount, the appellant had actually discharged the service tax liability. The case of the Revenue is that the entire amount taken for TDS purposes should be taken as the gross amount for the service rendered. If this view is taken, there will be short payment of service tax. Hence the proceedings were initiated. In terms of the impugned order, appellant is required to pre-deposit the following amount: 2. Ld. DR stated that this issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Jaipur-I v. Chambal Motors (P) Ltd. and Ors. Reported 3. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel informed the Bench that the gross amount received for the services rendered is completely different from the amount taken for TDS deduction. The amount paid by the bank directly to the customers is not part of the gross receipt received by the appellant. This amount is not liable to service tax. Therefore, he said that there is no short payment at all. Moreover, it was stated that the appellant had already deposited Rs. 2 lakhs towards service tax and Rs. one lakh penalty. Hence there was request for waiver of the balance amount of service tax.

4. On a careful consideration of the issue, we find that prima-facie, the appellants have a strong case in their favour. As they had already deposited Rs. 2 lakhs towards Service Tax, and Rs. One lakh towards penalty, the above amounts can be treated as pre-deposit and the balance amount of service tax and penalties is waived till the disposal of the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Em Pee Motors Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Jha, J T T.K.