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>JCB excavator monthly hiring constitutes transfer of right to use, not taxable service under precedents</h1> <h3>M/s Aashirwad Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad</h3> M/s Aashirwad Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Demand of Service Tax 2. Penalty under Section 77(1)(a)3. Penalty under Section 784. Applicability of Extended Period of LimitationSummary:1. Demand of Service Tax:The appellant, registered for 'Mining service' under Section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994, also provided 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service' under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) without registration and without paying service tax of Rs. 8,36,086/- for the period 2008-09 to 2010-11. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand for service tax along with interest and reduced the penalty under Section 77(1)(a) to Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant argued that they provided equipment with operators under the recipient's control, thus falling outside the scope of 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service.' The tribunal found that the appellant had provided the excavators and JCB machines without transferring the right of possession and effective control, thus falling within the scope of taxable service under Section 65(105)(zzzzj).2. Penalty under Section 77(1)(a):The original order imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,44,000/- under Section 77(1)(a) for not obtaining registration. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced this penalty to Rs. 10,000/-. The tribunal did not find it necessary to address this issue separately as the demand of service tax itself was not sustained.3. Penalty under Section 78:The original order imposed a penalty equal to the service tax amount (Rs. 8,36,086/-) under Section 78 for suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. The tribunal, citing various case laws, found that the appellant's service did not fall under 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service' and thus, the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties were not sustainable.4. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation:The show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellant argued that the extended period was not applicable based on several judicial precedents. The tribunal, deciding the case on merits in favor of the appellant, did not find it necessary to consider the issue of limitation.Conclusion:The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties imposed. The decision was pronounced in open court on 31 January 2024.
TaxTMI 