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>Appeals granted, orders set aside due to unjustified service tax demands and cargo handling rates.</h1> <h3>Vimla Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Taxes, Raipur</h3> Vimla Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Taxes, Raipur - TMI Issues Involved:The judgment involves the quashing of an order passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise dismissing two appeals related to the demand of service tax on cargo handling services provided by a company involved in constructing private railway sidings.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Demand of service tax on deposits made by consortium membersThe company, along with a consortium, constructed private railway sidings for common use, collecting interest-free refundable deposits from consortium members. The Commissioner upheld the demand of service tax on these deposits, which was also raised in previous years. However, the Tribunal set aside this demand in a common order dated 22.11.2019, as the deposits were used for construction purposes.Issue 2: Demand of service tax on difference in rates for cargo handling servicesThe main issue in the appeals was the demand of service tax on the difference in rates charged by the company for cargo handling services provided to consortium members and non-members. The Commissioner alleged that lower rates were charged from consortium members, but the Tribunal found this finding to be incorrect. The company charged rates based on various factors like the nature of commodity, handling requirements, and labor, and the rates were agreed upon commercially. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's reasoning for not accepting the rates agreed under work orders was incorrect, as the prices varied depending on specific factors. The Tribunal concluded that the company did not suppress the taxable value, and the demands were set aside in favor of the company.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28.09.2017, as the demands of service tax on deposits and the difference in rates for cargo handling services were found to be unjustified.
TaxTMI 