9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1029 - AT - Service TaxDemand of tax with interest - penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 non-submission of statutory returns Barites Ore and Iron Ore - mining service GTA service supply of tangible goods service - proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Imposition of equal penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 Held that - non-payment/ short payment of service tax cannot be held to be on account of suppression of material facts with intention to evade payment of duty penalty not imposed. Supply of tangible goods service dumpers and tippers CENVAT credit - capital goods or inputs? Board s Circular dated 23.10.2008 Held that - as these goods are primary requirements for providing the output services for such service providers, the goods including vehicles, aircrafts, vessels etc., are in the nature of inputs . It is emphasized here that this clarification is valid only when the output service is in the nature of service defined under the provisions of Section 65 (105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the goods in question are the tangible goods supplied during the course of providing the taxable service. The determination of service tax liability therefore require to be predetermined after taking into account eligible input credit matter remanded appeal disposed off decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Alleged evasion of service tax on Mining service, Goods Transport Agency Service, and Supply of Tangible Goods Service. 2. Non-submission of statutory returns for specific periods. 3. Imposition of penalty under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Dispute regarding payment of service tax on various services. 5. Denial of CENVAT credit on specific items. 6. Consideration of Board Circular F. No. 137/120/2008-CX-4 dated 23.10.2008. Issue 1 - Alleged Evasion of Service Tax: The appellants were accused of evading payment of service tax on Mining service, Goods Transport Agency Service, and Supply of Tangible Goods Service. The Revenue issued a notice demanding specific amounts under the Finance Act, 1994, which the appellants contested, claiming the allegations were legally incorrect. The adjudicating authority confirmed part of the demand while dropping the penalty under Section 78. The appeal challenged this decision. Issue 2 - Dispute Regarding Service Tax Payment: The appellant argued that the entire amount for mining services had been paid before the notice was issued. Regarding the supply of Tangible goods service, the appellant contended that the authority failed to consider a Board Circular, denying credit on specific inputs. The appellant also disputed the liability for service tax on transport of goods by road service, highlighting payments made for specific periods. Issue 3 - Imposition of Penalty: The Tribunal analyzed the imposition of an equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It noted uncertainties regarding the liability for service tax on various services during the disputed periods. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty equal to the tax demanded was not justified, considering the lack of clarity and uncertainty, and set it aside. Issue 4 - Denial of CENVAT Credit: The appellant's contention regarding the denial of CENVAT credit on specific items was supported by a Board Circular. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, emphasizing that certain goods used for providing taxable services should be considered as inputs for CENVAT credit purposes. The denial of credit was deemed inconsistent with the Circular, requiring a reevaluation of the service tax liability. Issue 5 - Consideration of Board Circular: The Tribunal extensively discussed the Board Circular dated 23.10.2008, emphasizing its relevance in determining the eligibility for CENVAT credit on specific goods used for providing taxable services. The Circular guided the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a fresh determination of service tax liability, considering the Circular's provisions on eligible input credits. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the penalty equal to the service tax demand, remanded the determination of service tax liability for supply of tangible goods service, and upheld the remaining parts of the impugned order. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a thorough reevaluation based on the legal provisions and Circular guidelines.
|
