2018 (5) TMI 611

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce Auxiliary Service". During the departmental audit for the period from July, 2008 to February, 2011 and March, 2011, it was revealed that the appellant have not paid Service Tax under the category "Supply of Tangible Goods Service" amounting to Rs. 3,96,284/- on rent received from specially designed trucks rented to Jaika Automobiles and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Raipur. The case of the department is that the renting of trucks to the lessees is the service falls under supply of tangible goods therefore it is liable to Service Tax under the category of "Supply of Tangible Goods Service". The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same, therefore the appellant are before us. 2. Shri Shaile....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....He further submits that the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel in the case of Praveen Engineering Works (supra) has been dealt with by the adjudicating authority and the same was not given credence for the reason that the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication, therefore the said judgment did not decide the issue finally. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the Revenue has demanded the Service Tax on the renting of trucks under the head of "Supply of Tangible Goods Service". As per the facts of the case which is not in dispute, we note that the appellant have given the trucks to the lessees on monthly rental charges. The appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lassifying the service under "Supply of Tangible Goods Service" fails. Admittedly during the lease period of truck the right of possession of truck and effective control have been transferred to service recipient, therefore the service does not fall under the "Supply of Tangible Goods Service". Accordingly the demand does not sustain. 4. As regard limitation, we observe that the show-cause notice in the main body does not make any allegation that the appellant have suppressed the fact or fraud or collusion or misstatement etc. and even in the proposal also the demand was raised under Section 73 and proviso to Section 73(1) which requires to demand for the longer period was not invoked. Therefore the adjudicating authority confirming the ....