2018 (8) TMI 1283 - AT - Service Tax

Liability of Service Tax - amount received by the appellant from Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) for the period 2008-09 to December 2011 - demand of tax with Interest and penalty - Held that - On an identical issue this Bench in the case of M.D. Yousuf Pasha and others 2017 (8) TMI 70 - CESTAT HYDERABAD where it was held that service tax along with interest needs to be upheld but set aside the penalty - there is no reason to deviate from such a view already taken by the Tribunal. The impugned order to that extent upholds the confirmation of tax liability along with interest is correct and the penalties as imposed by the lower authorities are set aside - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, Service tax liability on amount received from APSRTC, Confirmation of tax liability along with interest, Imposition of penalties

In the present case, the first issue before the Appellate Tribunal was the condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, after justifying the delay, allowed the application for condonation of delay. Moving on to the second issue, the Tribunal noted the absence of representation from the appellant and found that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the Bench. The Tribunal proceeded with the appeal's disposal based on the previous judgment.

The third issue involved the consideration of service tax liability on the amount received by the appellant from Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) for the period 2008-09 to December 2011. The appellant had hired out buses to APSRTC, and the authorities had confirmed demands, imposed penalties, and interest on the consideration received. The Tribunal, after hearing the Departmental Representative and examining the records, upheld the confirmation of tax liability along with interest.

Regarding the fourth issue, the Tribunal referred to a previous judgment in a similar case where the service tax liability was upheld along with interest, but the penalties were set aside. Following the precedent, the Tribunal in the present case upheld the confirmation of tax liability along with interest while setting aside the penalties imposed by the lower authorities. Consequently, the impugned order confirmed the tax liability and interest but annulled the penalties.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of in line with the Tribunal's findings on the service tax liability issue. The judgment emphasized adherence to the previous decision's stance on tax liability and penalties, ensuring consistency in the application of legal principles.