2016 (11) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. AV(249)223/2013 dated 20.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad. 2. The fact of the case is that the demand of Service Tax under GTA service was raised for the amount of Rs. 36,514/- interest under Section 75 was confirmed and penalty under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax should not have been demanded on this amount. In this regard, they placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Mazagon Dock Ltd. 2005 (187) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). The appellant in respect of penalties under Section 76 & 78 made a submission that this differential tax liability arose due to arithmetical error therefore there is no ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vice tax demand on the ground that for the year 2009-10 they have received transportation subsidy from the Government of Maharashtra which should not be treated as part of the gross value of the GTA service. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mazagon Dock Ltd.(supra) has held that subsidy of 20% from Government cannot be said to be additional consideration as it is not received f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id on payable by the service recipient. In the present case also, the subsidy given by the government, since not a part of the amount paid by the service recipient to the service provider, the subsidy cannot be included in the gross value of service. Therefore, the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment is directly applicable to the present case. Accordingly, I hold that the subsidy amount wi....