TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, was exigible to service tax liability. Accordingly, show cause notices dt. 19.01.2011, 08.03.2011 for periods 01.04.2006 to 30.09.2009 and 01.10.2009 to 30.09.2010 were issued inter alia demanding service tax liabilities of Rs. 13,74,744/- with interest and Rs. 1,69,079/- with interest. The SCNs also proposed imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. In adjudication, the original authority confirmed the demands and also imposed penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of the first notice and imposed penalties under Section 76 & 77 ibid in respect of the second notice. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide a common order dt. 21.12.2012 upheld the orders of the original authority. Hence these appeals. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be paid by them. In the decision of Hon'ble CESTAT in Harshitha Holdings referred above, which was affirmed by Supreme Court, it was held the above activities of the appellants would not be get covered under "Technical testing and certificate service or Management, Maintenance and Repairs service", Hence, inclusion of material value and demand of service tax on those services is not sustainable in limine. v) Alternatively, the appellants submit that they are entitled for benefit of notification No.12/2003 which exempts the value of goods involved in taxable service. As per the Notification, the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient are excluded from the payment of service tax, if there is su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bona-fide belief. They rely on the decision of Tribunal in Gayathri Construction Co. Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2012 (25) STR 259 (Tri. - Del). viii) Also, mere non-filing / non-registration without any deliberate intention to withhold/suppress information from the department, does not amount to suppression. They rely on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in Anand Nishikawa Co Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2005 (188) ELT 149 (SC). 3.1 On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supports the impugned orders. 3.2 In respect of demand on testing charges, he draws our attention to para 5.2 of the impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) has analysed the issue in detail and given a considered decision that the activities carried out by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agreement between the appellant and the other person/agency, which is binding only on the parties to the said agreement and therefore, it can never have any implications on the appellant's statutory obligations nor could it be even imagined to have any effect on any other person, not to speak of the Revenue. 5.2 In the SCN, the adjudicating authority observes from the details furnished by the appellant as under:- ".......5. From the details furnished by the assessee, the following were noticed: i) They claimed that paints used in proving the service of restoration/repair of LPG cylinders need not suffer service tax.............. ii) The paint consumed by the assessee while providing the maintenance or repair s....