TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns Service Tax demand, finding tolling operations not Business Auxiliary Service. Consequential relief granted.</h1> <h3>PNC Infratech Ltd. (Formerly Known as PNC Construction Co. Ltd.) Versus CCE- Ludhiana</h3> PNC Infratech Ltd. (Formerly Known as PNC Construction Co. Ltd.) Versus CCE- Ludhiana - TMI Issues:The appeal challenges the confirmation of demand for Service Tax under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act.Facts:The appellant was alleged to have contravened provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 by providing taxable services without registration and payment of service tax. The appellant collected toll tax at 'Doraha Toll Plaza' on behalf of NHAI, for which they failed to pay service tax. An enquiry was conducted, and a show cause notice was issued. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the original order.Appellant's Argument:The appellant argued that tolling operations were not covered under Business Auxiliary Service as they were not incidental or auxiliary to NHAI's activities. They cited various decisions supporting their position. They also contended that the contract was composite, and tolling operations alone should not be subject to service tax. The appellant raised the issue of time bar due to the absence of mala fide intent.Department's Response:The Authorized Representative reiterated the findings in the impugned order.Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal found that tolling operations by the appellant did not constitute Business Auxiliary Service provided to NHAI, based on previous decisions. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled by various benches, making it non-resintegra.Conclusion:The Tribunal held that the demand for service tax under Business Auxiliary Service was not sustainable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
