TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd., Aditya Nagar, Morak, Kota vide which the demand of service tax of Rs. 15,11,667/- along with interest and equal penalty was confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement, Clinker and holds Central Excise Registration No. AABCM6602QXM001. The appellant was also registered for payment of service tax vide registration number AABCM6602ST001. 2.1 During the course of Audit, it was observed that during the impugned period, the appellant had shown income of Rs. 38,18,710/- in their books under the head 'Other Receipts'. These amounts had been collected from their customers as penalty for cheque dishonour. The appellants had collected Rs 500/- or 1000/- or Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the suppliers who failed to provide the services within agreed time has been settled by holding that no Service Tax is leviable on such charges: DY. GM (Finance), BHEL V. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal 2022 (9) TMI 1005-CESTAT New Delhi Steel Authority of India Ltd., Salem V. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem 2021 (7) TMI 1092-CESTAT Chennai Northern Coalfields Ltd. V. Commissioner of CGST, CE & Customs-Jabalpur 2023 (1) TMI 934-CESTAT New Delhi NDMC Ltd. V. Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Raipur 2023 (12) TMI 904-CESTAT New Delhi Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. V. Commissioner of CGST, Dehradun 2023 (4) TMI 54-CESTAT New Delhi Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. V. Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voked. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision in the case of MTNL V. UOI 2023-TIOL-407-HC-DEL-ST. 3.5 Learned Counsel also contended that no interest is payable under Section 75 of the Act and no penalties is imposable under Section 78 of the Act as the demand itself is not sustainable for the reasons reiterated above. Further, no penalty is imposable under Section 78 of the Act in the absence of any malafide. Further, considering that the demand itself has no penalty is imposable in terms of Section 80 of the Act, and penalty under Section 78, if any, can only be limited to 50% as Appellant has maintained specified records. 3.6 Learned Authorized Representative for the Department submitted that the appellant has shown income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... present case there is no activity by the appellant whatsoever in this case and not even tolerating or agreeing an act, thus there is no service being provided in this case in terms of Section 65 B (44). 3.8 Learned Authorized Representative further submitted that appellant has taken plea that value of taxable service does not include accidental charges due to unforeseen action in terms of Rule 6(2) (vi) of Service Tax Rules 2006. In this context Learned Authorized Representative stated that appellant has collected above amount from their client as penalty towards refraining to pay the amount due as their cheque was either returned or bounced/dishonored and further they have also received certain amount from the service providers on accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other person but should specify the : (i) consideration for agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act; or (ii) consideration for agreeing to tolerate an act or a situation; or (iii) consideration to do an act. 26. Thus, a service conceived in an agreement where one person, for a consideration, agrees to an obligation to refrain from an act, would be a „declared service‟ under Section 66E(e) read with Section 65B(44) and would be taxable under Section 68 at the rate specified in Section 66B. Likewise, there can be services conceived in agreements in relation to the other two activities referred to in Section 66E(e). 27. It is trite that an agreement has to be read as a whole so as to gather the intention of the ....