TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellants is less than the threshold limit of Rs.10 Lakhs as prescribed under Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 after giving allowance to the exemption for 60% of the gross receipt in terms of Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. We find that the Departmental authorities have considered this principle and accepted the contention of the appellants in the case of VISHWANATH MISHRA VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., LUCKNOW [ 2018 (4) TMI 1677 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] and SECY. FEDERATION OF BUS-OPERATORS ASSN. OF TN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2001 (4) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] . The Principal Bench of CESTAT, in the case of M/S. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA VERSUS CCE, ALLAHABAD [ 2014 (1) TMI 609 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] held that for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant Shri Raman Mittal, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Shri Gurjant Singh and others who have provided one bus each to Punjab Road Transport Corporation have filed these appeals: Sl. No. Appeal No. Name of the Appellant OIA No. 1. ST/56041/2013 Shri Gurjant Singh Beant Singh 04-05/ST/Appeal/CHD- II/2013 dated 16.01.2013 2. ST/56042/2013 Shri Gurjant Singh Beant Singh 04-05/ST/Appeal/CHD-II/2013 dated 16.01.2013 3. ST/56043/2013 Shri Gurjant Singh B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one being that the authorities have not considered the fact that the turnover of each of the appellants was well within the exemption limit provided under Notification No. 06/2005 dated 01.03.2005 taking into account the fact that 60% of the gross receipt is exempted from payment of service tax in terms of Notification No.01/2006 dated 01.03.2006; he submits that the Department themselves have accepted this stand in respect of other persons who have similarly hired out their buses to M/s PRTC; he submits that Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Chandigarh vide orders dated 22.03.2012 and Asst. Commissioner , Patiala vide order dated 31.10.2007 have discharged the show-cause notices issued to the appellants therein. 4. The seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants in 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 such, are not liable to pay any tax. Therefore, we find that the appeals succeed on this count. Ongoing through the agreements relied upon by the appellants, we find that the appellants have simply provided their buses to M/s PRTC on hire and have received remuneration on per-kilometre basis; there is no arrangement of renting. We fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
