9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmovable property service'. 2. A Show Cause Notice dated 19.10.2012 was issued to the Appellant inter alia demanding Service Tax amounting to Rs.1,55,68,524/-. The said Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax Commissionerate, Kolkata vide Order-in-Original No. 57/Comm/ST/KOL/2013-14 dated 17.02.2014/18.02.2014 wherein the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs.1,55,68,524/-, along with interest. He also imposed a penalty equal to the amount of tax demanded under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of the Act. 2.1. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The Appellant submitted that the demand co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand for the year 2007-08 has been short demanded by the previous Show Cause Notice and the demand under 2008-09 to 2011-12 has been demanded by invoking the suppression clause. It is their contention that the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable since they have not suppressed any information from the Department. 3.2. Regarding the demand of Service Tax of Rs.1,07,40,970/- on the job charges received by them under the category of 'business auxiliary service', the Appellant submits that they have been rendering the service as a 'job worker' at the site of the principal; the said service is exempt from the levy of Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 08/2005-S.T. dated 01.03.2005. However, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under this category. Regarding the service tax liability for the normal period of limitation, they submit that they have already paid the service tax for the normal period. They have not paid the interest for the delay in payment of service tax for the normal period of limitation, which they agree to pay. 3.4. In view of the above, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the demands confirmed in the impugned order. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order and justified the confirmed demands. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. Regarding the demand of Rs.44,83,913/- under the category of 'GTA' service, we find that the Appellant had been engaged as a cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the sake of ready reference, the said Notification is reproduced hereunder: - " Notification No. 8/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable service of production of goods on behalf of the client referred in sub-clause (v) of clause (19) of section 65 of the said Finance Act, from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act : Provided that the said exemption shall apply only in cases where such goods are produced using raw materials or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 08/2005-S.T cannot be denied to the appellant. Accordingly, we hold that the demand of Service Tax of Rs.1,07,40,970/- confirmed under the category of 'business auxiliary service' in the impugned order is not sustainable and thus, we set aside the same. 6.4. Regarding the demand of Service Tax of Rs.3,43,641/-under the category of 'renting of immovable property service', we observe that the Show Cause Notice has demanded Service Tax under this head, as under: - Annesxure - C Reference RUD- 2 & 4 Calculation of short payment of service tax payable a by M/s. Singh Associates Renting on Immovable Property Service Year Amount received as RIM Rate of Duty Duty payable Amount shown in the ST-3 return Duty paid Amount include ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid these amounts vide three challans all dated 30th March, 2012, which we appropriate for the demand confirmed under the category of 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' for the normal period of limitation. However, we find that the Appellant have not paid the interest for the delay in payment of service tax for the normal period of limitation, which they agree to pay. 7. Regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, we observe that there is no suppression of facts with intention to evade the tax established in this case. Accordingly, we hold that no penalty is imposable on the Appellant and hence we set aside the same. 8. Regarding the penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Act, we observe t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
