TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest and proposing penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The allegation in show cause notice is that the appellant had been charging some amount from the transporters for arranging/providing cargo but in the case of Ex-mill sales, the appellant were arranging for the transport of the finished goods to the buyers. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and extended period was upheld. The adjudicating authority also upheld the penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act. However, the adjudicating authority granted them the benefit under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 holding that the appellant had bonafide belief and there was reasonable cause for failure to pay service tax. Aggrieved from the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals). 4. Heard the parties and perused the records. 5. We find that on merits, the appellant has no case. The appellant have been charging some amount from the transporters for arranging/ providing cargo for transporting finished goods in respect of Ex-mill contract to the buyer. In such cases the fabric manufactured by them was delivered to the buyers at the factory gate, so as to avoid any kind of responsibility/obligation arising during the transit from place of manufacture to place of delivery. They being manufacturer of fabric, have certain regular customers, who authorize them to arrange transportation on their behalf. In such cases, they identify transporters and negotiate the freight with the transporters on behalf of the buy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovided to a service provider." In the present case as the service has been provided by the appellant to transporter who is a service provider therefore the above contention of the appellant is not tenable. As such the demand of service tax is upheld." Hence, the service tax has been correctly charged in the category of BAS. 6. On the extended period, we find that the adjudicating authority has given the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act,1994 on the following grounds: ".......I find that apparently the default has occurred because the amounts were recorded in their accounts as on account of renegotiated freight. I find that there was reasonable cause for their failure to pay tax. Accordingly, I grant them benef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved, the adjudicating authority has clearly stated that there was interpretation of law involved and he extended the benefit of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 for not imposing any penalty. It clearly shows that the ingredients required for invoking extended period are not present in this case. Indeed in the entire adjudication order there is no word as to how the extended period is invocable. As such we find that the extended period is not invocable in this case. 7. It is also seen that the adjudicating authority categorically stated that it was not possible to check each and every entry running into thousands and then summarily went ahead and confirmed the impugned demand. It is to mention that once the appellant contended that t....