9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the case in brief are that the Appellant is providing vehicles to M/s Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation UPSRTC. Revenue collected information from UPSRTC about the amount paid to the Appellant for the period from 2009-10 to 2012-13. It appeared to Revenue that the amount so received by the Appellant was consideration towards providing 'Rent-a- Cab Operators service' and was chargeable to Service Tax. Therefore, a Show Cause Notice SCN dated 09.04.2014 was issued demanding Service Tax of Rs.1,40,911/- for the said period on a consideration of Rs.43,79,274/- received by the Appellant. The Appellant submitted before the Original Authority that the Appellant was entitled for abatement of 60% of the assessable value vide Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abatement of 60% is allowed which does not amount to exemption from whole of the Service Tax and therefore, whole of the consideration received by the Appellant needs to be taken into consideration while arriving at aggregate value of the services provided. 4. Learned Departmental Representative justified the impugned order and prayed that the appeal being devoid of any merit be rejected. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We find that as per the agreement reached between the Appellant and UPSRTC, it would be evident that Appellant attached his bus with UPSRTC on the basis of profit sharing. There is no fixed rent or hire charges. Instead, the profit is variable. Therefore, attaching a bus with the UPSRTC on profit s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) on the said judgement is unjustified because the facts in the case of Vijay Travels and of the impugned case are distinguishable as in this case vehicle has not been provided to UPSRTC either on hire or on rent. 9. That the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has placed reliance on the judgement of Lucknow Bench of Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad in the case of UPSRTC Vs CCE Lucknow (W.P. No. 11582 (MB) of 2008. Now the appeal filed by UPSRTC against the aforesaid judgement has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2011 (21) STR 357 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "6. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s bad in law. 11. That from the perusal of the Explanation "B" to Notification No. 06/2005-S.T. dated 01.03.2005, it would be evident (i) that the aggregate value for the purpose of this notification would be gross value of taxable services bereft of the value of goods used in providing the service; (ii) that the aggregate value shall be determined after deducting the gross amount exempt from whole of service tax under Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 or Notification No. 01/2006-S.T. 01.03.2006 (as amended). On deduction of the amount as envisaged under Notification No. 01/2006 ST dated 01.03.2006, aggregate taxable value each year would be much below the exemption limit as envisaged in the Notification No. 06/2005 ST dated (01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
