9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lleging that the appellants have undervalued the taxable service and have made short payment of Service Tax amounting to Rs.3,70,492/- for the period 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2007. It was alleged that the appellants were providing the service of 'Retreading of Tyres' covered under the category of 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service' and paying Service Tax only on the 30% of the Labour charges element charged to the customer instead of gross bill amount by excluding the cost of materials used in the service from taxable value by wrongly availing the exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003. The said Notification is available only in cases where the sale of goods is evidenced and the sale value is quantified separately in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held in his order that the appellants are entitled for cum duty price following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd., 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC). But, while re-quantifying the Service Tax demand, the Assistant Commissioner made an error by raising a demand of Rs.23,075/-. In fact nothing is payable by the appellants. Moreover, in the impugned order there is no finding given by the Commissioner (Appeals) while confirming the penalties against the appellant mere saying that 'as regards to imposition of penalties , I find that the appellants were registered under Service Tax on 25.10.2005, but they paid the service tax alongwith interest only on 13.10.2006. Therefore, I find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Rajarani Exports reported in 2010 (18) STR 77 (Chennai), wherein it was held that the burden on revenue to establish suppression on the part of assessee with intent to evade payment of Service Tax has not been discharged and no penalty is leviable under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Revenue has not discharged the burden of proof that the appellant has suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. There is no allegation of suppression in the show-cause notice also. Hence, I do not find that any penalty is warranted in this case against the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned order to the extent of imposition of penalties is set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
