TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3/2009, and Order-in-Original No. CCE/BBSR-II/S. Tax/ 18-Commr-2007 dated 30/12/2007. The period involved in these two appeals are from 1/1/2006 to 30/09/2006 and 1/1/2005 to 31/12/2005, involving the service tax amount to Rs. 27,46,516/- and 70, 38,200/- respectively. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron and mild steel ingots falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 at their factory located at Kumakela, Lathikata, District-Sundergrah, Orissa for which they are registered under the Finance Act, 1994 (for short 'Act') vide the registration No. 1/LR/S. Tax/2005. The appellant is receiving services from Goods Transport Agency and also from the Goods Trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present proceedings. The appellant is aggrieved by imposition of penalty and levy of interest on the appellants for the amount of service tax having already paid before the adjudication. 4. Ld. Advocate submits that the appellants have already paid the service tax before the issue of Show Cause Notices in the two cases and not contesting the demand on merits. Appellant is only challenging the levy of interest and penalty. Under reversed charge mechanism, the appellants bonafidly paid the service tax on the services received from the Goods Transport Agency / Operator under bonafide belief that levy is limited to service tax on services received from transport booking agents for which the reliance was placed in case of Nandganj Sihori Suga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the revenue neutral situation and hence the interest and penalty is not leviable as has been held in the impugned order. Reliance for which was placed on the following decisions; (i) Jet Airways India Ltd. Vs. CGT reported in 2016-TIOL-2072-CESTAT-MUM; (ii) Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. vs. CCT reported in 2018TIOL-2672-CESTAT-HYD; (iii) Anglo French Textile vs. CCE reported in(2018) 95 Taxmann. Com 329 (SC0 upheld by Supreme Court in (2018) 95 Taxmann. Com 329(SC) 7. In case of revenue neutral, it was impressed upon by the appellant, that no interest can be levied, placing reliance on the following judgments; (i) CCE vs. Siddheswar Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (320) ELT 524 (Bom)]; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocate and has advanced the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem vs. Suibramania Siva Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in 2014 (35) STR 500 ( Mad.). The relevant extract of the above judgment are reproduced here below for the sake of convenience:- 18. The expression "any person" is not defined under the Act. Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act defines "person", as including any company or association or body of individual whether incorporated or not. The thrust of the definition is that it includes every person engaged in an activity providing service of transport of goods by road. Thus, any commercial or a proprietary concern carrying ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods carried was for a single consignee, viz., the assessee alone, transported by the Goods Transport Agency, the assessee's case would fall under sub-clause (2); in which event, when the gross amount charged exceeded Rs. 750/-, as rightly advised by the assessee's internal audit, they remitted the liability. In the circumstances, we agree with the Revenue that the question of limitation, does not arise to hold that the demand herein is time barred as per Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994. As far as the levy of interest is concerned, Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 is the relevant provision, which reads as under :" 11. Thus we are of the opinion that the service tax is payble on such service which were not paid by the appellant in....