9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 238 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - testing of LPG cylinders - HELD THAT - The assessee itself had accepted its activities of providing repair and maintenance of cylinders and we do not see anywhere either in the assessee s reply or elsewhere, as to the appellant claiming to have under taken the above services free of cost - demand upheld. Penalties u/s 76 and 78 of FA - HELD THAT - Section 76 and 78 are mutually exclusive and hence there cannot be any penalty under both sections - the discretion under Section 80 of the Act could be exercised to set aside the penalties under Section 76 and 78 ibid. But in any case, it is the settled position that penalties under both Sections 76 and 78 are not exigible and therefore, levy of penalty in this case under both Sections 76 78 is clearly without any authority of law. The penalty u/s 77 is upheld. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Service tax liability on services provided for LPG cylinder testing and maintenance. 2. Inclusion of material value in taxable services. 3. Applicability of notification exempting the value of goods in taxable services. 4. Liability for service tax under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services. 5. Allegation of suppression of facts by the appellant. 6. Penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Service Tax Liability on Testing and Maintenance Services: The case involved the appellants providing services for testing, reconditioning, and cleaning of LPG cylinders, which the department claimed attracted service tax liability. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demands. The appellant argued that the testing was a statutory obligation under Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004, and Indian Explosives Act, 1884, and thus not liable for service tax. However, the tribunal held that without specific statutory appointment, the appellant's services were not exempt and rejected the contention that the services were exempt due to statutory obligations. Inclusion of Material Value in Taxable Services: The department alleged that the value of paints consumed during maintenance services should be included in the taxable value. The appellant relied on case law to argue against this inclusion, citing that the services provided did not fall under specific taxable categories. The tribunal agreed with the department, stating that the appellant's activities of repair and maintenance were not provided free of cost, leading to the conclusion that the inclusion of material value in taxable services was justified. Applicability of Notification Exempting Goods Value: The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No.12/2003, which exempts the value of goods involved in taxable services if sufficient evidence is provided. They argued that they had paid VAT on the paints purchased, supporting their exemption claim. The tribunal, however, upheld the lower authorities' decision that this notification was not applicable to the case. Liability under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Services: The appellant contended that they were not liable for service tax under GTA services as they used their vehicles for transportation. They argued that the liability fell on the service recipient. The tribunal referred to relevant case law and held that the appellant's use of their vehicles did not exempt them from service tax liability under GTA services. Allegation of Suppression of Facts: The appellant denied suppressing any facts from the department, stating they had obtained registration and paid taxes. They argued that any errors were made in good faith. The tribunal agreed that non-filing or non-registration without deliberate intent did not amount to suppression, citing relevant case law. Penalties Imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78: The tribunal noted that penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were mutually exclusive and that there was a bonafide mistake on the appellant's part regarding tax exemptions. They set aside penalties under Sections 76 and 78 but upheld the penalty under Section 77 as per the impugned order. This judgment addressed various issues related to service tax liabilities, application of notifications, and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994, providing detailed analysis and rulings on each aspect of the case.
|
