TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice Tax of Rs.1,55,68,524/-, along with interest. He also imposed a penalty equal to the amount of tax demanded under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of the Act. 2.1. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The Appellant submitted that the demand confirmed in this case has been categorized under the following three categories: Sl. No. Nature Amount (in Rs.) 1 Non-payment of Service Tax on transportation charges received under C&F services 44,83,913.00 2 Non-payment of Service Tax on job charges under business auxiliary service 1,07,40,970.00 3 Short-payment of Service Tax under renting of immovable property service 3,43,641.00 Total 1,55,68,524.00 3.1. Regarding the demand of Service Tax of Rs.44,83,913/-, the Appellant submits that this demand has been confirmed under the category of 'clearing and forwarding agency service'. They have been engaged as a consignment agent of M/s. Tata Steels Limited and also provided 'transportation of goods' service to their client. In this regard, the appellant submits that M/s. Tata Ste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the period from 2007-08 to 2009-10 has been short demanded by the previous Show Cause Notice and thus difference/short payment of Service Tax has been demanded for the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12 by invocation of the suppression clause against them. In this regard, the Appellant submits that there was always a dispute regarding the liability to pay Service Tax under the category of 'renting of immovable property service' during the impugned period. Thus, they contend that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to demand Service Tax under this category. Regarding the service tax liability for the normal period of limitation, they submit that they have already paid the service tax for the normal period. They have not paid the interest for the delay in payment of service tax for the normal period of limitation, which they agree to pay. 3.4. In view of the above, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the demands confirmed in the impugned order. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order and justified the confirmed demands. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. Regarding the demand of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed goods supplied by the client and goods so produced are returned back to the said client for use in or in relation to manufacture of any other goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), as amended by the Central Excise Tariff (Amendment) Act, 2004 (5 of 2005), on which appropriate duty of excise is payable. Explanation. - For the purposes of this notification, - (i) the expression "production of goods" means working upon raw materials or semi-finished goods so as to complete part or whole of production, subject to the condition that such production does not amount to "manufacture" within the meaning of clause (f) of section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); (ii) "appropriate duty of excise" shall not include 'Nil' rate of duty or duty of excise wholly exempt." 6.3. We observe that in this case, the Appellant has been rendering job work at the premises of the principal wherein, after the job work, the final product has been cleared on payment of duty by the principal. However, in the impugned order, the benefit of the above Notification has not been extended to the Appellant on the ground t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice Tax for the normal period of limitation, along with interest. 6.6. The Appellant made the submission before us that they have already discharged their Service Tax pertaining to the normal period of limitation under this category. We observe that the impugned Show Cause Notice has already quantified the service tax for the normal period of limitation as Rs.2,12,098/- for the period 2010-11 and Rs.89,768/- for the period 2011-12. We find that the Appellant has paid these amounts vide three challans all dated 30th March, 2012, which we appropriate for the demand confirmed under the category of 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' for the normal period of limitation. However, we find that the Appellant have not paid the interest for the delay in payment of service tax for the normal period of limitation, which they agree to pay. 7. Regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, we observe that there is no suppression of facts with intention to evade the tax established in this case. Accordingly, we hold that no penalty is imposable on the Appellant and hence we set aside the same. 8. Regarding the penalty imposed under Section 77....