9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered into with M/s. FCI Aravali Gypsum & Minerals India Ltd., Jaipur. 2. The dispute in the present case relates to liability of the appellant for service tax in respect of some of these activities carried out, on which full tax liability has not been discharged by them. Proceeding initiated against the appellant concluded in the impugned order, wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the service tax liability of Rs. 50,53,444/- and imposed penalty of equivalent amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and further penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Act. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that originally demand is for tax amount of Rs. 85,88,193/- under various categories of taxable service. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07. On the same activities, for the period prior to1.6.2007, the service tax was sought to be confirmed under a different service viz. site formation and clearance. This is not legally tenable. He relied on the various decided cases to support his contention. 6. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant did not produce supporting evidence regarding payment of Rs. 50,30,529/-. The Original Authority considered only regular payments made during the relevant time, in the absence of verification of other payments. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 8. On the first issue regarding appellant's liability for tax under GTA service, we notice while the demand has been made u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal-Delhi). As such, we find that the appellants are not liable to service tax for mining activities prior to 1.6.2007. 10. On the third issue regarding wrong quantification of taxable value, we note that the appellant's claim needs to be cross verified by the jurisdictional officers for correctness. The claim of the appellant is that they have not received an amount of Rs. 37,69,684/- as a consideration for taxable service. In the absence of receipt of consideration, no tax liability arises during the relevant period. This requires factual verification with the connected documents. Considering the facts above and legal issue, we find penalties imposed on the appellant are not sustainable. It is also a fit case for invoking provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
