TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed penalty equal to the tax demanded on the assessee under Section 78 of the Act. - considerable merit in the submissions of the assessee that it had no malafide intention and the non-payment of tax had been occasioned due to its bonafide belief that the liability was on its customers, the appellants have not challenged the order the original authority - . The assessee itself claims to be a GTA. In the circumstances, I do not find it appropriate to interfere with the demand and the penalty imposed on the appellant by the original authority. - 171/2008 - - - Dated:- 21-5-2010 - For approval and signature: Hon'ble Mr P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Present for the Assessee: Shri R.V. Prasad, Adv Present for the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cover service tax for the services under the category GTA rendered by the assessee during the material period. The assessee paid an amount of Rs 2,09,417/- on 22.06.2006 before issue of show cause notice on 14.09.2006. The proposals in the show cause notice to levy service tax from them were contested. It was argued that the liability to pay service tax was on the consignor or the consignee in terms of sub-clause (v) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules 1994. The legislative intention was not to levy service tax on the fleet owners or the goods transport agencies where the consignors/consignees were from the organized sectors like factories, companies, societies, partnership etc. All their customers fell under an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , when there was no mensrea or contumacious conduct on the part of the appellants to evade payment of service tax. They were under the bonafide impression that no service tax had to be paid by them. The liability was on the user of the service. For the same reason, the penalty imposed under Section 76 was not sustainable. It is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 5. Heard both sides. 6. As per the appeal, M/s RCFPL is engaged in the business of goods transport agency with a fleet of 34 trucks. During the material period, it had provided mainly transportation services to its sister concern M/s Desai Brothers and also leased trucks to others. Their clients were transport agencies, brokers, traders and industries operating as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
