TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 531
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s Associated Cement Companies Ltd. and also act as Transportation Agent under separate contracts for transportation of cement from the factory at Madukkarai to various destinations in Kerala. The appellants have obtained Service Tax registration and discharging the Service Tax on C&F Agent Service and filing ST-3 Returns periodically with the Department. A SCN dated 26.09.2005 was issued to the appellant demanding an amount of Rs. 34,29,009/- being the Service Tax not paid for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.08.2004 along with interest and also proposed penalties under Section 76 & 78. After following the due process, Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2006 dropped bulk of the demand of Service Tax on transport charges....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elonging to ACC and this is not a consideration for rendering C&F Agent Service. He further submitted that the damage allowance of Rs. 4,68,408/- are the amounts reimbursed by ACC towards amounts paid on account of damage to the cement bags in the course of handing and delivery to the customers and also does not represent consideration received for C&F Agent Service. Similarly, the amount of Rs. 89,163/- recorded under the head of "loading charges" and Rs. 610/- under the head of "demurrage charges" were the amounts received towards provision of "transportation service" under a separate contract. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority has dropped the demand of Service Tax on transportation/freight charges received by the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liable to Service Tax. Further, the issue relates to interpretation of law and the same stands settled in favour of the appellant by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants (supra). Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel, there was no suppression of fact or malafide intention on the part of the appellant and therefore the entire demand is barred by limitation. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Sanjay Industrial Corporation Vs CCE, Mumbai, 2015 (318) ELT 15 (SC). * Kiran Ispat Udyog Vs CCE, Rajkot, 2015 (321) ELT 182 (SC). * Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs CCE, Chandigarh, 2002 (146) ELT 481 (SC). 4.1. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the adjudicatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of taxable services for charging service tax, the authorities are to find what is the gross amount charged for providing 'such' taxable services. As a fortiori, any other amount which is calculated not for providing such taxable service cannot a part of that valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such 'taxable service'. That according to us is the plain meaning which is to be attached to Section 67 (unamended, i.e., prior to May 1, 2006) or after its amendment, with effect from, May 1, 2006. Once this interpretation is to be given to Section 67, it hardly needs to be emphasised that Rule 5 of the Rules went much beyond the mandate of Section 67. We, therefore, find that High Court was right in interpreting Sections 66 an....