TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng various taxable services under the category of management, maintenance or repair service, shipment management service, supply of tengible goods service and erection commissioning or installation services etc. They were registered with the Department for payment of service tax. The dispute in the present appeal relates to service tax liability of the appellant/assessee with reference to provision of Multi Purpose Support Vessel (MSV) to ONGC and L&T on charter hire basis. There is a dispute also with reference to valuation of management service undertaken by the appellant/assessee on offshore, supply vessels of ONGC. 2. After conducting certain investigation and verification of various records of the appellant/assessee, proceedings were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S and the demand should have been confirmed for the whole period. 4. Regarding extending benefit under Notification 12/2003, the learned AR submitted that such abatement is available only on categorical proof of sale of goods during the course of provision of taxable service. Such sale of goods should be clearly established by supporting the evidence like invoices, payment of VAT etc. In the absence of categorical supporting evidence the benefit of Notification 12/2003 should not have been extended by the Original Authority. The Revenue is also aggrieved by non-imposition of penalty under Section 78. It is submitted that when the demand was for more than one year and the said service tax liability has been confirmed by the Original Authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue, calling for variation. 7. Regarding non-imposition of penalty under Section 78 it is submitted that the reasons are categorically recorded by the Original Authority. The tax liability of the appellant/assessee started only in May 2008 after the introduction of tax entry for supply of tangible goods service. The investigation about the service tax liability of the appellant/assessee started sometime in March 2008. As such, it could not be said that for a future liability there could be a mens-rea. Even otherwise, the learned Consultant submitted that the appellant/assessee have regularly paid service tax, though in some cases with delay due to financial difficulty. However, full tax liability on supply of tangible goods have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or different periods. Admittedly, the taxing scope of business support service did not undergo in the statute by change or amendment during the material time. A new service tax entry for supply of tangible goods was introduced w.e.f. 16/05/2008. It is not the case of the Revenue that the said tax entry is not applicable to the appellant. The only contest is that prior to 16/05/2008 the same service should be taxed under different entry, namely, BSS. We find no legal support for such assertion. In this connection we refer to decision of the Tribunal in Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. CST, Chennai - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 546 (Tri. - Chennai). The Tribunal held that in case of introduction of new tax entry without amending the pre-existing tax entry it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e no reason to interfere with the findings of the Original Authority. 11. Regarding imposition of penalty under Section 78, we note that the Original Authority categorically recorded the reasons for the same at para 117 of the impugned order, the same is reproduced below :- "117. PENALTY : Whether the Noticee are liable for penalty under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. I find that in the SCN it has been alleged that service tax in respect of supply of tangible goods has been paid by the Assessee after the commencement of investigation by DGCEI. Here I find that the investigation of the DGCEI commenced in March 2008 where as the service became taxable in May 2008. Hence I find that there is nothing irregular in the payment of service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terfere. In fact, the case of the appellant/assessee is that the proceedings itself should have closed under Section 73 (3) as the service tax liability alongwith interest has been discharged prior to issue of show cause notice. We find considerable force in such submission. However, the issues were examined regarding applicability of various tax entries for different periods and also availability of the abatement under Notification 12/2003 and required detailed analysis by the Assessing Authority. As such, there is no infirmity in proceeding with the adjudication to arrive at a detailed fact finding for correct tax liability. However, this is a fit case for invoking provisions of Section 80 for non-imposition of penalty under Section 76. T....