2010 (7) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sound finding substantiated with any evidence to the effect that the appellants had not paid the tax on account of fraud, suppression of facts, willful misstatement etc., with intention to evade the tax due - appeal is partly allowed by vacating the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 76 of the Act - Appeal is disposed of
Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.V. Prasad, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M. Vivekanadan, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is an appeal filed by M/s. Rajahari Carriers & Finance Pvt. Ltd., (RCFPL) seeking to vacate the impugned order whereby the Commissioner, Service Tax Hyderabad revised the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and passed the followin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iability to pay service tax was on the consignor or the consignee in terms of sub-clause (v) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules 1994. The legislative intention was not to levy service tax on the fleet owners or the goods transport agencies where the consignors/consignees were from the organized sectors like factories, companies, societies, partnership etc. All their customers fell under any one of these categories. They had not obtained proof of the status of their customers with reference to the notification at the time of leasing of vehicles under the bona fide belief that they did not attract liability to service tax they being fleet owners. They had not collected any amount from their customers towards serv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le. It is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 5. Heard both sides. 6. As per the appeal, M/s. RCFPL is engaged in the business of goods transport agency with a fleet of 34 trucks. During the material period, it had provided mainly transportation services to its sister concern M/s. Desai Brothers and also leased trucks to others. Their clients were transport agencies, brokers, traders and industries operating as GTA. The consistent claim of the appellants before the lower authorities as well as in the appeal filed before the Tribunal is that the liability to pay service tax is on the consignor or the consignee when they fall under any one of the categories listed in sub-clause (v) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X