2026 (4) TMI 1743

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, whereby the Order-in-Original was upheld and the appeal filed by the Appellant was rejected. The Order-in-Original had confirmed a demand of service tax amounting to Rs.10,72,494/- along with applicable interest under Section 75 and equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 1.2 M/s. Faiveley Transport Rail technologies, Hosur (hereinafter referred to as "The Appellant") is engaged in manufacture of compressors, air dryers and valves, and registered under GTA and other services, incurred transportation expenses of Rs.5,32,59,877/- during 2010-11 towards GTA freight, courier services and small consignments. A Show Cause Notice alleged non-payment of service tax under reverse charge on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and have discharged service tax themselves, and therefore reverse charge liability cannot be fastened on the Appellant, as clarified by CBEC Circular No. 341/43/96-TRU dated 31.10.1996; the Appellant also contended that in respect of freight paid to entities such as South Eastern Railways, service tax has already been discharged by service providers and any further demand would result in double taxation, relying on CBEC Circular dated 17.12.2004 and decisions including Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. and Hi-Tech Diesel Pvt. Ltd.; it was further argued that consignments valued below Rs.750/- are exempt under Notification No. 34/2004-ST, and that the extended period of limitation is not invocable as there was no suppression of facts, all details b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der GTA services in the hands of the Appellant under reverse charge mechanism. ii. Whether service tax can be demanded again on freight where service tax has already been discharged by GTA/service providers. iii. Whether the Appellant is entitled to exemption in respect of small consignments under Notification No. 34/2004-ST and, iv. Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty under Section 78 are invocable in the facts of the present case. 7. We now proceed to examine the issues arising for determination in the present appeal, one by one, seriatim. The answer to all these questions doesn't call for any determination as being decided in catena of judgements where there is adequate documentary evidence....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty is intrinsically linked to the determination of tax liability and factual findings. Therefore, the same also requires reconsideration based on proper verification of records. 14. In view of the foregoing, we find that the matter has not been properly examined by the lower authorities and requires fresh consideration. Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2017 and Order-in-Original dated 13.08.2015 are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. 15. The Adjudicating Authority shall examine all documentary evidence including consignment notes, courier invoices, declarations and correspondence from service providers, and shall: - i. determine the correct c....