Appellate Tribunal excludes value of free diesel from service charges, citing precedent.

The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in two appeals concerning the inclusion of the value of diesel supplied free of cost in the gross amount charged for services rendered. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal held that the value of free supplies from the service receiver should not be part of the 'gross amount charged' by the service provider. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appellants' appeal and dismissed the department's appeal, emphasizing that penalties were not warranted when the underlying demand was deemed unsustainable.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the value of diesel supplied free of cost by the service receiver should be included in the gross amount charged by the service provider.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals filed before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi. The first appeal was by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax against an order setting aside penalties imposed in a previous order. The second appeal was by a company against the same order that confirmed a demand for service tax. The appellants were engaged in providing various services to a company, and the core issue revolved around the inclusion of the value of diesel supplied free of cost in the gross amount charged for services rendered.

The Appellate Tribunal considered the argument that the value of free supplies, such as diesel, by the service receiver should not be part of the gross amount charged by the service provider. The Tribunal referred to a precedent set by the Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi. The precedent established that the value of free supplies from the service receiver should not be included in the 'gross amount charged' by the service provider. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that any demand based on including the value of diesel supplied free of cost in the gross amount charged was unsustainable.

Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellants, ruling in their favor. It dismissed the department's appeal, emphasizing that when the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of imposing any penalty does not arise. The judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents and established principles in determining tax liabilities and penalties in service tax cases.

---