9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Shri S. Balakumar, AC (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Brief facts of the case are that during the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellants were providing transportation facilities to the employees of companies like M/s. Ford India Ltd., M/s. Satyam Infotech Ltd. They were paying service tax on these services under 'Business Support Service' w.e.f. 1-7-2006. The department was of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Department now proposes to demand service tax on the very same activity classifying it as BAS; that the very same services cannot be classified under a different category when a specific entry has been introduced later. He adverted to para 4.3.4 of the OIO and argued that the adjudicating authority himself holds that the said activity would fall under a specific entry which has been introduced a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts have rightly discharged the service tax liability after the introduction of BSS. 2.3 The Ld. Counsel argued on the ground of limitation also. For the period pertaining to October, 2005 to June, 2006 show cause notice has been issued on 19-4-2011. The entire issue is on the interpretation of classification of the activity rendered by the appellant. The department has not come forward with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the appellant, BSS is not a category carved out of BAS. It is an introduction of a new entry. Thus, when the appellant has been discharging their service tax liability under BSS after its introduction, the very same activity cannot be classified under BAS for the period prior to 1-5-2006. The view taken by the department that introduction of a specific entry is not absolving the appellant from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng service tax under BSS after its' introduction in the Finance Act, 1994. This is accepted and admitted. There is no evidence to prove that appellants wilfully suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of service tax. The appellant succeeds on limitation also. 7. After perusal of facts as also following the ratio of the decisions relied by the Counsel for appellants, we are of the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
