2016 (9) TMI 374 - AT - Service Tax

Whether the toll tax collected by the appellants at the toll plaza under an agreement with MCD would call for payment of Service Tax on the amount retained by them under the category of Business Auxiliary Services or not - Held that - inasmuch as the issue stands settled, we find no reason to uphold the impugned order. Therefore, by following the precedent decision of Tribunal in the case of PNC Construction Co. Ltd. Vs CCE, Chandigarh 2012 (12) TMI 878 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and Patel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot 2013 (11) TMI 402 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD wherein it was held that toll collection on highways cannot be held to be Business Auxiliary Service being provided by the assessee to the NHAI, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether toll tax collected by the appellants at the toll plaza under an agreement with MCD would call for payment of Service Tax under "Business Auxiliary Services" category.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal noted that the issue in question had been previously addressed in various cases. Referring to the decision in the case of PNC Construction Co. Ltd. Vs CCE, Chandigarh, it was observed that providing Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) to entities like NHAI (National Highways Authority of India) was not applicable if the entity was not engaged in commercial activities. The Tribunal emphasized that toll tax and fee for the use of a bridge, where a percentage of the collection is retained, does not fall under the BAS category. The Tribunal also highlighted that when judicial forums interpret an issue differently, the extended period cannot be invoked.

2. Citing the case of Patel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot, it was reiterated that toll collection on highways cannot be considered a Business Auxiliary Service provided by the assessee to NHAI. The Tribunal found that the issue had already been settled through previous decisions, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order should be set aside. By following the precedent decisions, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted consequential relief to the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, after considering the precedents and settled issues, decided in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.