9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. ORDER The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. AV(249)223/2013 dated 20.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad. 2. The fact of the case is that the demand of Service Tax under GTA service was raised for the amount of Rs. 36,514/- interest under Section 75 was confirmed and penalty under Sections 70,77,76 & 78 were imposed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount. In this regard, they placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Mazagon Dock Ltd. 2005 (187) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). The appellant in respect of penalties under Section 76 & 78 made a submission that this differential tax liability arose due to arithmetical error therefore there is no intention to evade the service tax. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transportation subsidy from the Government of Maharashtra which should not be treated as part of the gross value of the GTA service. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mazagon Dock Ltd.(supra) has held that subsidy of 20% from Government cannot be said to be additional consideration as it is not received from buyer either directly or indirectly. Hence, the subsidy amount is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idy given by the government, since not a part of the amount paid by the service recipient to the service provider, the subsidy cannot be included in the gross value of service. Therefore, the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment is directly applicable to the present case. Accordingly, I hold that the subsidy amount will not attract service tax. The adjudicating authority is directed to re-q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
