TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IGARH [ 2011 (3) TMI 161 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] had categorically held that Notification No.29/2008-ST dated 26.06.2008 pleaded by the appellant in support is not applicable to GTA Services which is covered by sub-Clause (zzp) of Clause 105 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 whereas the exemption under the said Notification is meant for sub-clause (zzzz) of Clause 105 of Section 65 of the Act ibid. Undoubtedly, the component manufactured and transported by the appellant are covered within the definition of Goods under the Finance Act, 1994 being movable property and satisfying the definition of the term under Section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Also the unit has been registered as a factory under the Factories Act. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest as applicable in addition to imposition of penalties on the appellant under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The impugned orders involved demand of service tax of Rs.3,28,838/- for the period 1st February 2008 to 30th September 2008 and demand of service tax of Rs.4,17,560/- for the period 1st October 2008 to 30th March 2009. 2. The appellant essentially pleads that they are a unit set up under the Ministry of Railways for enabling the discharge of sovereign function of providing rail-transportation. Shri Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that appellant reports directly to Member (Mechanic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts manufactured by them were not covered under the definition of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 as they were not capable of being bought and sold, however bears no merit. 3. Considering the submissions, learned AR drew our attention to Circular No.354/59/2006-TRU dated 10th November, 2006 whereby the word used in law is any person and that no difference is ordinarily made so as to exclude a Government organization from the application of the statutory provisions. He further submits that the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the appellant‟s own case vide 2011 (23) STR 31 (Tribunal Delhi) has settled the matter and therefore, the issue herein is no more res integra. 4. We note that the appellant had in times of urgency or other such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
