2023 (10) TMI 884

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant and has confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 1,53,979/- alongwith interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also imposed equal penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant was engaged in maintenance & handling of corporation owned and contractor operated (COCO) retail outlet site of M/s Indo British Petroleum Ltd., Panipat (merged with IOCL in May, 2007) at Arya Nagar, Hisar from where petroleum products, mainly motor spirit and High-Speed Diesel are sold. For the said arrangement, an Agreement dated 01.09.2005 was entered between IB....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had not rendered service to the M/s IBP Co. Ltd. and this fact has been confirmed by PIO & Dy General Manager (E), Delhi State Office of IOCL vide its reply dated 07.09.2010 pursuant to RTI filed by the Appellant. He further submitted that the appellant has also filed a copy of ITR for the Financial Year 2003-04 & 2004-05 which shows that there was no income of the Appellant from M/s IBP Co. Ltd. in these years. * Ld. Consultant further submitted that the appellant is eligible for SSI Exemption for the period from September 2005 to march 2007 because there charges are less than 4.00 Lacs in a Financial Year and as per the SSI Exemption provided under Notification No. 06/2005 S.T. dated 01.03.2005, the appellant are not liable to pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to 01.05.2006, no Service tax liability can be demanded under Business Auxiliary Service from the Appellant who is an individual and not a commercial concern. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions - C.S.T., New Delhi v. Kamal Lalwani, cited in 2017 (49) S.T.R. 552 (Tri. - Del.) Pratap Singh Jyala v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Meerut - II, reported in 2015 (40) S.T.R. 333 (Tri. - Del.) C.S.T., New Delhi v. Jitender Lalwani, cited in 2017 (51) S.T.R. 312 (Tri. Del.) Circular No. 62/11/2003-S.T., dated 21.08.2003 * Ld. Consultant further submitted that the revenue has wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation by alleging that the appellant did not pay tax, nor got s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y of Business Auxiliary Service as defined under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submits that the extended period has rightly been invoked because the appellant did not pay the tax, did not get the registration and did not file the service tax returns. He further submitted that the appellant is not entitled to SSI exemption as they fall under the proviso to the exemption because they are providing branded services. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, we find that the demand of service tax for the period from 1st April 2003 to March 2005 is prima facie wrong because the appellant has started rendering services to M/s IBP Co. Ltd. from 01.09.2005 as is clear from t....