9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein, for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.07.2008 had incurred an expenses towards the inward freight charges, it was noticed they had not discharged the service tax liability as required under reverse charge mechanism and had also availed the Cenvat Credit of the service tax on inward freight charges paid by the transporters on the strength of bills/invoices/debit notes raised by transporters. Show Cause Notice was issued for demand of the service tax on the amount paid by the appellant assessee, as freight charges, proposal was to demand interest and also for imposition penalties on the assessee appellant for the violation of the provisions. 5. Appellant assessee contested the Show Cause Notices on merits and on limitation also. The adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period wherein one of the person required to discharge the service tax liability under the category goods transport agency the service tax liability was fastned on recipient of GTA services, and in the case in hand said discharge of service tax liability is done by transporters themselves, seems to have been accepted by the revenue authorities as nothing is on record to show that any Show Cause Notice is issued to transporters, if that be so, again demanding the service tax from the appellant assessee seems to be totally wrong proposition of law. It seems that the revenue has mis-construed tax liability under reverse charge mechanism in this case. Similarly issue was decided by this bench in the case Regency Ceramics Ltd 2017 (12) TMI 682 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CL, as per the CBEC Circular, no demands can be raised on the appellant. We hold it so. Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 36,33,920/- is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. Since we have set aside the demand itself, on a factual finding that tax liability with interest is discharged to the Govt of India by the GTA service provider, we do not find any reason to uphold the demand of interest on the appellant." 6. Respectfully following the above ratio, we hold that demand of service tax on the appellant assessee is not sustainable, accordingly the same is set aside. 7. As regards appeal filed by the revenue, we find that the revenue's appeal is seeking indulgence of the Tribunal to set aside the findings of the lower authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
