2018 (4) TMI 1186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....36 Crores in equal 104 installment of Rs. 34,63,200/- each during the period 06.02.2004 to 04.02.2005. The appellant was allowed to retain with them the amount of Toll collected in excess to Rs. 36 Crores as their commission of working as Toll Collecting Agent as terms and condition of Contract Agreement. An investigation was launched by DGCEI on the basis that the said activity is falling under category of Business Auxiliary Service . Accordingly Show Cause Notice was issued demanding duty of Rs. 12,10,658/- along with interest and proposing penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. The matter was adjudicated resulting in confirmation of entire demand along with interest and imposition of penalty of Rs. 24,21,318/- under Secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emit the balance. It can be seen that the appellant herein is collecting an amount as toll from the users of the DND bridge. To our mind, the users of toll fee paid bridge cannot be considered as customers. The persons who are using the DND bridge cannot be called as customers of either the appellant or NTBCL for a simple reason, because the expression customer as defined in Advanced Law Lexicon read as under :- "Customer is a person with whom a business house or a business man, has regular or repeated dealings; a purchaser of goods; one who frequents any place of sale for the sake of purchasing or ordering goods. A business customer is one who has the use and habit of resorting to the same person or place to do business; therefore....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate is the law which has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of P&H in the case of C.C.E. v. Lal Path Lab (P) Ltd. (supra). 10. As regards the collection of toll by the appellant on behalf of M/s. Banas Sands, it is undisputed that the said toll fees collected by the appellant is nothing but the toll which has been levied by the municipal corporation of Delhi. We find that Notification No. 13/2004 specifically exempts the service tax liability on such services of collection of duties and taxes levied by Government. 11. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that the impugned order which confirmed the demands raised in the show-cause notice is incorrect and is liable to be set aside and we do so". 6. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity. Therefore providing business auxiliary services by respondents to such NHAI is inconceivable. Therefore, for such reason, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue without approving reasons given by the adjudicating authority." We also find in the case of PNC Construction Co. Ltd. v. CCE (supra), an identical view has been taken which is as under :- "4. After hearing both the sides, we note that identical issues were the subject matter of the Tribunal s decisions. In this case of Intertoll ICS CE Cons O&M P. Ltd. vide Final order no. ST/A/34/12-Cus., dated 23-12-11, the Tribunal observed that NHAI has availed the services of respondent and the said NHAI is not established by Revenue to be business concern or a commercial c....