TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Road/Goods Transport Agency Service'. During the audit of its record of 'Financial Year 2012-13 it was observed that appellant had received a monetary consideration due to cancellation of deal entered for purchase of goods from M/s. Shri Kapileswar Steel, Raipur. Department formed the opinion that the said amount is an amount towards consideration for rendering 'Declared Services' as defined under section 66E of the Finance Act. With this observation vide Show Cause Notice No.78/2016-17 dated 12th August, 2016 Service Tax amounting to Rs.3,63,384/- is proposed to be recovered from the appellant alongwith the appropriate interest. Penalties under section 76 & 77 of the Finance Act are also proposed to be imposed. Proposal was initially c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ach of contract forfeiture of salary or payment of bond amount. 1. Circular No.178/10/2022-GST dated 03.02.2023 2. Circular No.214/1/2023-ST dated 28.02.2023 5. Finally, submitting that the demand is otherwise barred by time, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative though has reiterated the findings arrived at in the order under challenge. However has acknowledged that the issue involved vis-à-vis leviability of service tax on the forfeited amount is no more res-integra. 7. Keeping in view the submissions of both the parties herein, perusing the decisions relied upon and also section 66E (e) of Finance Act, we foremost have observed that und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance in this regard is placed on the decision in the case of M/s. K.N. Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kanpur [2019-VII-731-CESTAT-ALH-ST] = 2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 60 (Tri. - All.). 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is observed that the appellant had agreed to sell TMT Bars to M/s. Shri Kapileswar Steel Raipur pursuant to the order for supply placed by the later. However, Shri Kapileswar cancelled the said purchase order. This cancellation has been treated as a breach of contract. Appellant vide two letters dated 28.02.2013 and 31.03.2013 has conveyed that the amount of Rs.18,90,000/- and Rs.10,50,000 respectively has been forfeited by the appellant subsequent to buyer failing to perform his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ood Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kanpur [2019-VIL-731-CESTAT-ALH-ST] wherein it was held that if a contract provides for an eventuality which is uncertain and also remedy if that eventuality occurs, such charges made towards making good the damages, losses or injuries arising from unintended events cannot be considered to be the payments for any services under Section 66E(e) of Finance Act, 1994. (ii) M/s. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Raipur [2018 (9) TMI 1514] - while deciding whether Service Tax liability arises on the UI Charges received by the Company in terms of Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Court held that UI Charges have been received by the Appellant only in those cases ....