2026 (6) TMI 453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Order). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were providing testing services to M/s Coca-Cola USA and M/s Coca-Cola India, but were not discharging service tax in respect of certain services provided to Coca- Cola India. The department noticed that there is a difference between balance sheets and ST3 returns, where certain incomes were not disclosed for the year 2008-09 to 2009-10. On further enquiry, it was noticed that they had apparently received such differential amount towards renting of premises and towards compensation for not meeting the guaranteed number of coolers for testing purpose from Coca-Cola India. The appellants paid the service tax demand pertaining to 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' (RIPS). ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cooler and this compensation was not for any service provided to Coca-Cola India for testing their coolers but for not providing of required business by Coca-Cola India. He has also submitted that this issue is now no longer res integra that service tax cannot be charged on such liquidity damage. He has relied on following case laws. a) Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd Vs Commissioner, Chennai [2021 (53) GSTL 401 (Tri-Chennai)] b) Northern Coalfields Ltd Vs Commissioner, Jabalpur [2023 (71) GSTL 63 (Tri-Del)] c) Southeastern Coalfields Ltd Vs Commissioner, Raipur [2021 (55) GSTL 549 (Tri-Del)] d) CST, Chennai Vs Repco Home Finance Ltd [2020 (42) GSTL 104 (Tri- LB)] e) Chennai Metro Rail Ltd Vs CST....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had paid Rs.3,73,890/- towards rental charges for the period April, 2009 to December, 2010 along with interest and in fact, are continuing to pay service tax from December, 2010 onwards. These assertions were made by them in support that there was no malafide intent and therefore, extended period could not have been invoked. 9. We find that the Original adjudicating authority has already given them the benefit of section 80(2), where it was mandatory for the person to pay up the outstanding service tax along with interest under the category of RIPS. Once the adjudicating authority has already extended the benefit of waiver of penalty, we feel that the issue regarding classification cannot now be opened and therefore, there is no infirmi....