TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1029
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od January 2008 to April 2008. Department alleged that the appellants have evaded payment of service tax on the Mining service, Goods Transport Agency Service (GTA service) and Supply of Tangible Goods Service (SOTG service), not paid service tax on GTA service and SOTG service. It was also alleged that the appellants have not submitted their statutory returns for the period from the half year ending 31/03/2009 and 30/09/2009. 1.2. In view of the above, the Revenue issued notice vide letter C.No.107/TCCE/2009-Adjn. proposing to demand a sum of Rs. 16,06,303/-relating to Mining service, an amount of Rs. 1,40,40,355/- towards SOTG service, sum of Rs. 59,42,969/-towards GTA service under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2009), while the adjudicating authority has found merit in the submission that no service tax was payable as there was no service provider-service recipient relationship, however he has wrongly concluded that they are liable to pay service tax although no consignment note was issued by the lorry owner. The learned advocate further submitted that an amount of Rs. 1,18,294/ has been paid by them for the period April 2007 to July 2007. 3. On behalf of department Ld. AR Sri. S.P. Rao submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has already taken into consideration the above submissions of appellant, has conceded many of the contentions, and has therefore passed a very reasoned and balanced order with application of mind. He further pointe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....definitely was lack of clarity in respect of service tax liability concerning transport of goods by truck owners and others. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the non-payment/ short payment of service tax cannot be held to be on account of suppression of material facts with intention to evade payment of duty as concluded by lower authority. This being so, imposition of penalty equal to tax demanded under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 is not justified in this case and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 6. Regarding the demand of Rs. 1,11,92,132/- in respect of supply of tangible goods for use of services, the appellant has contended that as per aforesaid Board's Circular dated 23.10.2008, they w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... defined under the provisions of Section 65 (105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the goods in question are the tangible goods supplied during the course of providing the taxable service. 3. This may be brought to the notice of all constituent members of your trade associations. 7. From the above, it is clear that supply of tangible goods viz, dumpers and tippers etc, will need to be considered as primary requirements for providing the said output service, and hence such vehicles will be in the nature of inputs for the purposes of CENVAT Credit Rules,2004. This being so, the denial of the credit on the said vehicles by lower authority falls foul of the Board's Circular. The determination of service tax liability in ....