9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding that there was sufficient cause for nonpayment of service tax was rendered in the context of Section 80 of the Act (as it stood at the relevant time). Accordingly, the order dated 3 July 2013 and the order dated 14 May 2013 of the Tribunal directing predeposit of Rs.10,04,928/are set aside. Further, the Tribunal is directed to hear the appellant's appeal from order dated 17 October 2012 of Commissioner (Appeals) on merits without insisting any predeposit. - Central Excise Appeal (ST.) No. 164 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2013 - Mohit S. Shah, C.J. And M. S. Sanklecha,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Markand Joshi with Mr. Anand Kulkarni and Ricab Chand For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. J. B. Mishra J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edeposit of service tax before the Tribunal decides the issue on merits, Counsel for both sides request that the appeal itself be disposed of at the stage of admission. Accepting the request of the Counsel, the appeal is being taken up for final disposal. 5 In the above facts, we first set aside the order dated 3 July 2013 of the Tribunal. We shall now consider the sustainability of the order dated 14 May 2013 of the Tribunal directing predeposit of the entire duty demanded for the purposes of hearing the appeal. 6 The appellant is Sugar Factory which received during period 1 April 2005 to 31 October 2006 service of a Goods Transport Agency (GTA). In this GTA service, the liability to pay Service Tax is cast on the recipient of the servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is immediately after imposition of service tax afresh on GTA. Thus there was genuine room for confusion regarding the correct legal position in respect of liability to pay service tax, especially because reverse charge mechanism was introduced for first time (on GTA) under the Service Tax Law. Further, in the case of Appellant, the fact of individual truck owner's providing transportation services further leaves ample scope for doubt about the service tax liability on GTA, as 'Commercial concern' was mentioned in the definition during the period of demand covered by the Show Cause Notice/OrderinOriginal. Thus, I am of the view that as per the facts of this case, as narrated above, the Appellant has proved that there was reasonable cause for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so to be factored in to conclude that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Even if the finding that there was sufficient cause for nonpayment of service tax was rendered in the context of Section 80 of the Act (as it stood at the relevant time). This finding will also apply to determine whether there was any intent to evade payment of service tax. Moreover, the revenue has accepted the deletion of penalty as we are informed that the revenue has not preferred any appeal from the order dated 17 October 2012 of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the penalty. Moreover, Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the services were provided by individual Truck owners who are not covered by the definition of GTA as ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
