TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....presented by the appellant-proprietor, for collection of Toll on behalf of CPRCL at the rates prescribed by the Government. From the Toll amount so collected, the appellant was to remit the quoted amount in installments as per the relevant schedule in the agreement. This prompted Revenue to issue show-cause notice dated 13/02/2015 wherein it was proposed inter alia that the appellant was acting as an intermediary and was instrumental in the collection of toll from the vehicles passing through the Edapally - Aroor Stretch of the NH-47 which was classifiable under taxable service category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) as defined in Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended). It was also pointed out in the show-cause notice tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 (Tri.-Mumbai) b. Mateshwari Indrani Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST -2018-TIOL-2608-CESTAT-DEL. c. M/s. Chawanda Associates & M/s. Ridhi Siddhi Associates Vs. CST-2019-TIOL-1091-CESTAT-DEL. d. Swarna Tollway (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2011 (24) STR 738 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and reported in 2013 (31) STR 419 e. Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC) f. CCE Vs. ITC Limited - 2010 (257) ELT 514 (Kar.) with decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2013 (295) ELT A64 (SC) 4.1. Learned advocate would also rely on the Circular issued by the Board viz. Circular No. 152/3/2012-ST dated 22/02/2012 in support of his contention that CPR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erms of quantum of amount or percentage is charged by the respondents from NHAI/MSRDC. They are liable only to pay the bid amount installment to NHAI/MSRDC irrespective of any collection which can in no way be said to be commission income. They have purchased the right to collect the toll in auction which in no way can be termed as rendering of service to NHAI or MSRDC. Rather the respondents in terms of the agreement are liable to pay the amount fixed at auction to the NHAI/MSRDC irrespective of the fact that such collection of Toll is profitable to them or not. This leaves no doubt that for the above reason also the Toll collection by the respondents is not arising from any "Business Auxiliary Service". We further find that even M/s. NHAI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stainable on merits and accordingly dismissed. Since we have held that the demand is not sustainable on merit, we therefore are not inclined to go into the other submissions made by the respondent M/s. MEP. In case of M/s. IRBPL we find that the demand apart on merits was also set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on time bar/limitation which has not been challenged by the Revenue in its appeal. We also find that the demands are time barred as the show cause notices for the later period were issued earlier which clearly shows that the Revenue was in knowledge of the facts. We thus hold that the demands are not sustainable on being time barred and the impugned order has been rightly set aside the demand on time bar also in case of M/s. IRB....