TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e operator's service (rent-a-cab service), an investigation was initiated by the Headquarters Anti-Evasion Wing of the Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate, Guwahati. 1.1. Upon completion of the investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2013 was issued to the appellant inter alia demanding Service Tax of Rs.97,91,695/- (inclusive of cess) under the category of rent-a-cab service Rs.1,31,092/- (inclusive of cess) under the category of 'tour operator's service' and Rs.84,291/- (inclusive of cess) under the category of 'business auxiliary service' for the period from April 2008 to March 2013 in terms of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The said Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Exci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Notification No. 01/2006-S.T. dated 01.03.2006, but the ld. adjudicating authority has not granted the benefit of abatement and charged Service Tax on the gross amount. In support of their argument that they are eligible for the abatement, the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC(P) Gujarat v. Reliance Petroleum Ltd. [2008 (5) TMI 13 SC]. The appellant submits that the abatement claimed by them has been rejected on the ground that the invoices show that the appellant have charged Service Tax on the unabated value. 4.1. Regarding the demand of Service Tax under the category of 'tour operator's service', the appellant submits that the Notice alleged that the appellant provided tour operator ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respective balance sheet date. It is their submission that the data available in the Profit and Loss account and balance sheet cannot be automatically construed as taxable values, liable for service tax and it must be established whether the activity undertaken by the appellant falls within the ambit of charging Section and to whether service tax is leviable on the said activity or not. The appellant submits that Service Tax cannot be levied or imposed in a blanket manner; transaction wise meticulous verifications are the essential needs for proper valuation of Service Tax; that in the present case, the Department has mechanically issued the Show Cause Notice without verifying liability of Service Tax on the appellant. Accordingly, they co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ofit and loss account of the appellant, which is as follows: - Year Service Tax payable ST EC SHEC Total 2008-09 2885086 77702 38851 4001639 2009-10 2764005 55280 27640 2846925 2010-11 2620212 52404 26202 2698818 2011-12 2959157 59183 29592 3047932 2012-13 952357 19047 9524 980928 Total 13180817 263616 131809 13576242 8.1. It is on record that the appellant has paid Service Tax of Rs.37,84,548/- for the period from 2008-09 to 2012-13 which has been appropriated/adjusted in the impugned order. The appellant submits that rightly paid service tax on the liability payable by them and differential Service Tax liability confirmed in the impugned order is on account of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the purpose of quantifying the demand of Service Tax under the category of rent-a-cab scheme operator's service for the normal period of limitation. The appellant is liable to pay the service tax for the normal period of limitation along with interest. 9. We also find that the ld. adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Service Tax under the category of 'tour operator's service' by granting the benefit of abatement at the rate of 75% from the gross amount received in terms of Notification No. 38/2007-S.T. dated 23.08.2007, as amended, and worked out the liability of Rs.35,276/- during the period from 2008-09 to 2012-13 as follows: - Year Gross amount received Taxable value Service Tax payable ST EC SHEC To....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the purpose of quantifying the demand of Service Tax under the categories of 'tour operator's service' and 'business auxiliary service' for the normal period of limitation. The appellant is liable to pay the service tax on the above said services for the normal period of limitation along with interest. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not imposable on the appellant. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act is set aside. 10.1. Regarding the penalties imposed under Section 77(1)(a) and Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, we find that the appellant has not made any submission for non-imposition of penalties under these sections. We f....