THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. I Service Tax Appeal No.41621 to 41625 of 2019 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.04-08/2019, dated 27.06.2019 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai)

Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant SIPCOT Industrial Estate, 8B/2, Singaperumal Koil Road, Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Chennai 602 105 VERSUS The Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex. ...Respondent Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No.20504, I Block, II Avenue, 12^th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040 APPEARANCE:

Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE MR. AJAYAN T.V. MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER Nos.40683-40687/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 27.02.2025 DATE OF DECISION :02.07.2025 Per AJAYAN T.V.

M/s. Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd, the appellant herein, has preferred these five appeals assailing the impugned common Orders-in-Original Nos.04-08/2019 (STA-1) dated 27.06.2019 (OIO in short) whereby the adjudicating authority, while adjudicating a show cause notice and subsequent four statements of Demand, covering the period from 2008-09 to June 2017, had confirmed the demands of service tax payable along with applicable interest and imposed penalties under Section 76, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (Act in short).

2. Briefly stated, facts pertaining to the allegations raised in the SCN issued to the Appellant, are that the Appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department under the categories of "Management Consultants, Consulting Engineer, Technical Inspection & Certification, Business Auxiliary Service. Transport of Goods by Road, Business Support Services, Renting of immovable Property Service and Information Technology Software Service.”

3. The appellant is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling commercial vehicles trading of vehicles and their spare parts, providing shared services and also providing Annual Maintenance Contracts, Warranty and Extended warranty for the vehicles sold. The appellant has started commercial production in June 2012. The appellant has been paying Service Tax as Service Provider and Service Receiver for various services provided and received in terms of Section 68(1) and (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. During the course of compliance verification, while verifying the expenditure made in foreign currency for the corresponding value for discharge of service tax, it was found that the appellant has not discharged the service tax liability on the amount paid for the import of manpower. The company employs expatriates from their group companies for working in India, at the premises of the assessee and disbursed remuneration categorized by the assessee as salary in the Balance Sheet.

4. The appellant on enquiry stated that the expatriates are under dual employment and that once their term with the appellant is over, unless the contract is renewed, they would join back the Principal Company by default. The appellant has also stated that the expats are appointed for a stipulated period in India and that 100% of their salary is subject to Income Tax in India. The appellant produced a framework agreement for International Transfers of Employees between M/s. Daimler AG, Germany and M/s. Daimler Hero Commercial Vehicles Limited, New Delhi. Appellant vide letter dated 22.02.2013 has stated that the company was incorporated on 10th December 2007 in the name of Fortius Motors Limited which was a Joint Venture between Daimler AG, Germany, Hero Corporate Services Limited and Flourishing Manufacturing & Automotive Limited (together referred as 'Hero') and the name of the company was subsequently changed to Daimler to Hero Commercial Vehicles Limited on 8th lune 2008. After the exit of ‘Hero' the name of the company was changed to Daimler India Commerci