Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 498 - AT - Service TaxDemand - Transport coordination Activity - Arrangement of entire transportation, dispatching of goods and supervising the loading and unloading of the goods - Appellant contended that this activity is covered under “Business Support Services” from 1st May, 2006 - Held that:- as per definition of the “Business Support Services” under section 65, it is found that managing distribution and logistics was covered under the said category as one of the goods on which service tax liability arises under “Business Support Services”. Therefore, the activity under taken by the appellant under Transport Coordination Services would be covered under “Business Support Services” with effect from 1.5.2006 and will not be covered under “Business Auxiliary Services” as per agreement. Demand not sustained and set aside. Demand - Business Auxiliary Services - Organized for collection of order from various stockist, distribution of said goods and collecting them from said stockist - Held that:- this activity of the appellant, would fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services under promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client. Therefore, the service tax liability under this head is correctly confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The service tax liability along with interest is upheld. Demand for January 2005 to March 2006 - Goods Transport Agency Services - Appellant contended that the amount of service tax need re-quantification in as much - Held that:- the appellant has not been able to show us the correct figures attributable correctly to inward in words transportation and outward transportation and also amount paid by them for transport of third party in the absence of any such information, so the service tax demand under goods transportation agency fastened on the appellant is correct. To soot out the limited question of quantification of limit of service tax liability, the matter is remitted back to adjudicating authority. Interest - Held that:- Interest liability also arises on the appellant in respect of the service tax liability upheld Imposition of penalties - Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- except for penalty under section 76 ibid, penalties under other sections are unwanted in as much, by invoking the provisions of section 80. They may have had justifiable reasons for not paying the service tax as wordings of the agreement could have created a confusion. Accordingly, the penalty under section 76 is upheld and penalties imposed under section 77 and 78 ibid are set aside. - Appeal disposed of
|