Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 823 - AT - Service TaxLevy of Service Tax - amount collected as liquidated damages - period from April 2016 to June 2017 - present proceedings arise from the subsequent show cause notice - HELD THAT:- The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of tax but this order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated January 13, 2020. In regard to the show cause notice dated October 05, 2017 issued for the previous period pertaining to 2012-13 to 2015-16 though the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand, but the said order was set aside by the Tribunal in M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE BHOPAL [2021 (2) TMI 821 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. The Tribunal examined whether the amount collected by the respondent towards liquidated damages would be for a declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Finance Act], which is a service for agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act for a situation, or to do an act. The Tribunal noticed the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in M/S SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR [2020 (12) TMI 912 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], in M/S LEMON TREE HOTEL VERSUS COMMISSIONER, GOODS & SERVICE TAX, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOM [2019 (7) TMI 767 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and M/S K.N. FOOD INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR [2020 (1) TMI 6 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] and held that service tax could not be demanded on the amount collected by the respondent towards liquidated damages. The Commissioner (Appeals) committed no error in setting aside the demand confirmed by the Additional Commissioner - Appeal dismissed.
|