9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment. In view of the same, we find no merits for confirmation of demand of service tax on the said ground to the extent of ₹ 67,64,987/-. Accordingly, the same is set aside alongwith setting aside of penalty on the same count. Business Auxiliary Service - contracts by NHAI - collection of tolls and deposit the same with the authorities, while retaining a small percentage as their commission - Held that: - reliance placed in the decision of COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Versus INTERTOLL ICS CE CONS O & MP. LTD. [2013 (12) TMI 731 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that such activity of toll collection on commission basis would not fall under the category of business auxiliary services, so as to make the same liable to service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and in fact the service tax paid by them to some extent stand subsequently refunded to them by the original Adjudicating Authority vide his order dated 24/1/13. As such, the confirmation of demand on the management, maintenance and repair of roads would not survive in view of the retrospective amendment. He also brings to our notice the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Patel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Rajkot reported in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 701 (Tri. - Ahmd.), wherein while taking 'note of said retrospective amendment, the confirmed demand in respect of the activity of repair of road was set aside. As regards the confirmation of demand under business auxiliary services, the appellant submits that they have been awarded co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - III reported in 2016 - TIOL - 672 CESTAT - AHM. 3. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue place the matter to the discretion of the Bench. 4. After appreciating the submissions, we find the admittedly Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2004 grants exemption to the management, maintenance and repair of roads, with retrospective effect till 26th July, 2009. The period involved in the present appeal is 16/5/2005 to June, 2007, which periods stand covered by the above amendment. In view of the same, we find no merits for confirmation of demand of service tax on the said ground to the extent of ₹ 67,64,987/-. Accordingly, the same is set aside alongwith setting aside of penalty on the same count. 5. The balance demand of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
