TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 95,42,52,185 - Held that:- Commissioner has not given any findings on various submissions of the Appellants. Therefore the issue needs to go back the adjudicating authority to take into account the submissions made by the Appellants and evidence provided by them before computing the actual tax liability of the Appellants. Valuation - fuel supplied by the customers - inclusion of different reimbursements received by customers - Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- The Learned Commissioner has not examined the various services provided by the Appellants before arriving at the tax liability of the Appellants - there is force in the arguments of the Appellants that the tax liability would be limited the considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenance and allied ancillary works thereto including local transportation. They were sole rising agents for M/s Ananth V. Sarmalkar. RBSM retained the service tax component from the payments made to the Appellants. Such service tax retained by them was paid to the Appellants by way of an account payee cheque drawn in favour of Government towards service tax. The Appellants were also paying a fixed amount of ₹ 23/- litre to RBSM on account of fuel supplied to them. The Appellants were also undertaking miscellaneous work like sweeping / cleaning of roads etc. on behalf of M/s. RBSM and were debiting the necessary charges to their account. 2. DGCEI has investigated into the records of the Appellants and issued a Show Cause Notice date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under. Issue Involved Period Amount demanded Rs Position taken by the appellants in the reply Service tax collected and alleged as not paid April, 2005 to March 2007 1,74,38,562 The amount is demanded beyond even extended period of limitation. The amount is actually paid Gross amount charged as per ST-3 Returns taken as received and alleged short paid June, 2007 to March, 2012 3,76,38,173 The classification is not free of doubt The value taken is incorrect All tax credits not granted. Input credit not granted. Once errors are rectified the fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand of Service Tax for the period 2005-2007, the Show Cause Notice does not classify the service rendered by them. However, the Commissioner has categorized the same under business auxiliary services and demanded duty under Section 73A. The Appellants contended that Section 11D is applicable only in the following cases. (i) The person has collected any amount in excess of duty assessed or determined and paid on excisable goods or (ii) The person has collected any amount as representing duty of excise on any excisable goods which are wholly exempt or chargeable to nil rate of duty from any person in any manner The Appellants claims that there is no allegations in Show Cause Notice i.e. services rendered by them are not taxabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not produced any evidence to support their claims. The Appellants submitted that the classification of difference services is incorrect; value has not been taken correctly; tax credit was not granted and that if the errors were rectified there would be no tax liability. The Appellants submitted that some of the services rendered by them come under site formation, coal cutting have come into effect from 16.06.2005 and 01.06.2007; some of the activities undertaken by them come under cargo handling service and not as mining service; under GTA services there is an exemption granted for transport charges upto ₹ 1500/trip. We find that Commissioner has not given any findings on the above submissions of the Appellants. Therefore we find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
