2020 (1) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the appellant assessee failed to get registration with the Service Tax Department and has also failed to submit periodical ST-3 returns. The Show Cause Notice proposed to demand Rs. 3,00,175/- for the entire period from 2005-06 to 2009- 2010 along with interest and also proposed to impose penalty of equal amount under Section 78 and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order and rejected the appeal before him. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant assessee submits that they had obtained registration on 23/09/2009 under the Taxable Service category of "Trans....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that possesses the vehicle by virtue of ownership, under lease/hire agreement etc., and is responsible only for affecting carriage of the goods and is not required to issue consignment note. He further contended that it has been made clear by the Ministry of Finance that incidence of tax in case of goods transport agency is on the transport booking agency and not on the truck owner. (Vide a press release dated 20.08.2004 and 24.08.2004). 3. The Ld. DR justified the impugned orders. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. I find that the appellant assessee is not disputing its liability for payment of Service Tax and have in fact paid the Service Tax on the basis of their calculation. Since the appellant is a service ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case of SREE KANYACOMBINES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM-II reported in 2016 (43) S.T.R. 604 (Tri.-Hyd.). The relevant paragraphs are as under:- 5. I have heard the rival submissions. Undeniably the issue whether activity of renting of immovable property is subject to levy of service tax was a contentious one. In the present case, the value of taxable service of 'sale of space or time for advertisement' for the respective period is less than the threshold of exemption. The contention of the appellant that they bonafide believed that their services would not be taxable as renting of immovable property services was subject matter of litigation pending before the Apex Court is acceptable. It is also correct that sub-....