TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e bill books/note books of the Appellant did not reveal the amount of consideration, the major service recipients were approached and based on verification of their books of accounts, it appeared that the Appellant was liable to pay a service tax amount of Rs. for the period from April 2008 to June 2001. This resulted in the issuance of Show Cause Notice dt. 04.10.2013 proposing to demand the aforesaid service tax amount and after due process, the Adjudicating Authority vide the Order in Original No.119/2014 ST dated 03.11.2014 confirmed the amount of Rs. after allowing cum tax benefit . He also imposed penalties under Sections 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the above demands, the Assessee filed an Appeal before First Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riably were received through cheques, so as to arrive at the gross amount on which service tax was payable (if at all) by the Appellant during the period of dispute. 3.3 Show Cause notice was entirely barred by limitation of one year prescribed. Therefore from the date of notice viz. 04.10.2013, the entire demand is barred by limitation in the present case. 3.4 It was contended by the Ld. Advocate that the JCB hired by Appellant bore the Registration No.TN--32D 4941, in the year 2009--10, he had taken one more JCB of his friend on sub--lease and this JCB bore Registration No.TN 32 F 0709, which was hired out to M/s.URC Construction (P) Ltd., one of the major customers of the Appellant, the hire charges received for this JCB ought to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1382--CESTAT AHMEDABAD. (vi) CCE Vs Chartered Logistics Ltd -- (2024) 16 Centax 473 (Tri.--Ahmd.). This view is affirmed by Supreme Court as reported in 2024 (16) Centax 474 (SC). 4. Per contra, Ld. A. R Shri N. Satyanarayana relied on the findings of the Lower Authority. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and we have meticulously considered the documents placed on record before us including case laws. After hearing both sides, the following issues arise for our consideration : (i) whether the extended period of limitation has been justifiably invoked? (ii) whether the impugned demand made under the "Supply of Tangible Goods Service" is correct ? 6. From a perusal of both the OIO & OIA, we find t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch is that the bills submitted by the Appellant therein indicated that they had raised monthly bills for hire charges for trucks, the order impugned therein concluded that in those bills the Appellant charged rent on the tangible goods viz. JCB & Trucks on the basis of number of days of hire, prior to 01.07.2012 such supplies were liable to service tax under the category of 'Supply of Tangible Goods' as defined under Section 65 (105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. With effect from 01.07.2012, the transfer of goods by way of hiring, leasing, licensing or any such manner without transfer of right to use such goods has been declared as 'deemed service'; accordingly, the order impugned therein had justified the demand of service tax by trea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of M/s Luit Developers Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Dibrugarh, wherein this Tribunal has held similar view that the demand cannot be based on AS26 statement received from Income Tax department, without any corroborative evidence. 17. From the decisions cited above, we observe that the demands confirmed merely on the basis of the data available in the Income Tax Returns/AS26 Statements is not sustainable. It must be established that the amount shown in the AS26 statements are actually received in connection with taxable service rendered by the Appellant. As the department has not brought in any positive evidence to substantiate the allegation that the amounts received are towards rendering of taxable ....