2023 (8) TMI 1734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....BLE Mr. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant : Shri Gagan Kohli, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Harish Kapoor and Shir Ravinder Jangu, Authorised Representatives Per: P.ANJANI KUMAR The brief issue involved in these appeals is that the appellants have hired out/rented out, one bus each to PRTC, for its operation which payment was made on per-kilometre basis. The De....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the cases cited above. We further find that Principal Bench of CESTAT, in the case of Ashok Kumar Mishra (supra) held that for the purpose of calculating the threshold limit, 60% of the consideration exempt, vide Notification No.01/2006, should not be taken into account. We find that if 60% of the consideration received by the appellants is excluded, they fall under the exempted category and as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unts, the question of penalties does not arise. 7. In view of the above, we find that the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. We do so and allow all the seven appeals. 2. In respect of Appeal No. ST/1512/2011 (Narinderpal Singh), it was further submitted that this is second round of litigation. In the first round, penalty was imposed under Section 76 of ....