BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application for condonation of delay of 110 days has been filed by the appellant M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd. on the ground that the impugned order was in fact received by them only on 20 -9 -2013 and immediately thereafter they have filed the appeal on 26 -9 -2013. However, the impugned order dated 26 -2 -2013 appears to have been sent by the department on 28 -2 -2013 and as per the postal authority's letter dated 28 -8 -2013 produced by the Revenue the order has been served on the appellant on 9 -3 -2013. The learned Counsel submits that they had changed the address of the corporate office and due to change of address, the copy of the order could not be received. The appellant came to know about the order when the Revenue authorities wrote to them for recovery of the dues adjudged vide letter dated 4 -7 -2013. Immediately thereafter on 8 -7 -2013 they had intimated the department that they had not received the said order and requested for a copy of the same, which was ultimately received by them on 20 -9 -2013. However, as a matter of abundant precaution, they have filed the COD application for condonation of delay.

(2.) CONSIDERING the reasons stated as satisfactory, we condone the delay in filing the appeal.

(3.) THE appellant M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd. is engaged in providing Banking and Financial Service and Insurance Auxiliary Service. They are also in the business of lending money for purchase of vehicles to their customers. When the customers who have taken the money default in repayment of loan, they have the right over the vehicles and they take possession of these vehicles by engaging the services of recovery agents. These recovery agents seize the vehicles and handover the same to the appellant and recover seizing charges. The recovery agents discharged Service Tax on seizing charges under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. The appellant took Cenvat credit of the Service Tax paid on the seizing charges during the period 2007 -08 to 2011 -12 amounting to Rs. 95,25,997/ -. The Revenue was of the view that the Service Tax paid on the seizing charges is not permissible under the law inasmuch as the seizing of vehicles is not an input service for the lending activity undertaken by the appellant, Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 22 -10 -2012 was issued demanding Service Tax of Rs. 95,25,997/ - for the period 2007 -08 to 2011 -12 along with interest thereon and also proposing to impose penalties. The matter was contested by the appellant. However, the adjudicating authority confirmed the Service Tax demand by holding that the activity of seizing by engaging services of a recovery agent is not an input service for the lending of money by the appellant and hence, does not come within the purview of input service as defined under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, he confirmed a Service Tax demand of Rs. 95,25,997/ - and ordered recovery thereof along with interest thereon and also imposed an equivalent amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us.