https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763721 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763721 Non/short payment of service tax - transportation charges received under C F services - job charges under business auxiliary service - renting of immovable property service - extended period of limitation - penalties u/s 77 and 78 of FA. Demand of Rs.44,83,913/- under the category of GTA service - HELD THAT:- The Appellant had been engaged as a consignment agent of M/s. Tata Steels Ltd. and had also provided goods transport agency service . In this regard, the Appellant produced a letter dated 09.01.2011 issued by M/s. Tata Steels Ltd. wherein M/s. Tata Steels Ltd. have categorically stated that they are paying Service Tax in respect of the services under goods transport agency (GTA) service - the activity undertaken by the Appellant is appropriately classifiable under the category of goods transport agency (GTA) service, the Service Tax for which is liable to be paid by the recipient of Service viz. M/s. Tata Steels Ltd. In this case, the above letter clearly indicates that M/s. Tata Steels Ltd. has accepted their liability for payment of Service Tax under GTA services under reverse charge mechanism and discharged their Service Tax liability. In view of the above, the demand of Service Tax of Rs.44,83,913/- from the Appellant under clearing and forwarding agency service is not sustainable. Demand of service tax of Rs.1,07,40,970/- under the category of Business Auxiliary Service - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has been rendering job work at the premises of the principal wherein, after the job work, the final product has been cleared on payment of duty by the principal. However, in the impugned order, the benefit of the above Notification has not been extended to the Appellant on the ground that the job work has not been done at their own premises. In this regard, it is observed that there is no such condition in the notification that the job work has to be done in their own premises. Even if the job work is undertaken at the premises of the customer, the benefit of the exemption under N/N. 08/2005-S.T cannot be denied to the appellant. Accordingly, the demand of Service Tax of Rs.1,07,40,970/- confirmed under the category of business auxiliary service in the impugned order is not sustainable and thus, the same is set aside. Demand of Service Tax of Rs.3,43,641/-under the category of renting of immovable property service - demand in this case has been raised for the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12 and the Show Cause Notice was issued on 19.10.2012 - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There was confusion prevalent during the relevant period about the Service Tax liability of an assessee under the category of renting of immovable property service and thus the invocation of the extended period of limitation is set aside. Thus, the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax for the normal period of limitation, along with interest. Imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- There is no suppression of facts with intention to evade the tax established in this case. Accordingly, no penalty is imposable on the Appellant and hence the same is set aside. Penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Act - HELD THAT:- The same has been imposed based on the allegation that the Appellant has not reflected the correct service values in their S.T.-3 Return. This allegation is not substantiated. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 77 ibid. is also set aside. Conclusion - The demands under clearing and forwarding agency service and business auxiliary service were set aside. The demand under renting of immovable property service was upheld only for the normal period, and all penalties were set aside. Appeal disposed off. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530