9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the service tax along with interest before issue of SCN - also, the levy was newly introduced during the relevant period involved in the present case and even the department was not aware of the statutory provisions and hence, the department has demanded the entire amount in the SCN without giving the benefit of abatement as provided under Notification. The benefit under Section 80 extended as the service tax along with interest is paid before issue of SCN - penalty rightly set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/CROSS/69/2010, ST/933/2009-SM & ST/933/2009-SM - 20823/2017 - Dated:- 7-6-2017 - Mr. Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Parasivamurthy N. K, AR For the Appellant Mr. Pradhyumna C. H. Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of freight charges incurred by them during the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2005. Therefore, the officers observed that M/s. Zeenath appeared to have contravened the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and rules made thereunder. After investigation, a show-cause notice dated 15.2.2007 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum demanding service tax of ₹ 1,56,21,327/- under the category of GTA Service. After following due process of law, the Commissioner adjudicated the show-cause notice vide Order-in-Original dated 28.8.2009, whereby the Commissioner has held that respondent was liable to pay service tax under GTA Service on transportation charges incurred by them during the period January 2005 to December 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the period involved in the present case is January 2005 to December 2005 during that period, the levy was newly introduced and respondent was not aware of his liability to pay service tax as receiver of service. On being proceeded against by the Department and coming to know of their liability to pay service tax as receiver of service, the respondent paid the same along with interest before the issuance of show-cause notice. He further submitted that while issuing the show-cause notice, the department has demanded service tax on the gross freight charges without extending the benefit of abatement to the extent of 75% as per Notification No.32/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004 which only demonstrates that even the department was not aware of the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Vs. CST: 2016 (45) STR 209 (Tri.-Bang.) Ganesh Tours Travels: 2010 (18) STR 171 (Tri.-Bang.) CCE Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd.: 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar.) Gupta Metallics Power Ltd. Vs. Commissioner: 2016 (44) STR 681 (Tri.-Mumbai) Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Commissioner : 2017 (49) STR 176 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the respondent, I find that in this case, the Commissioner in the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly given the benefit of Section 80 and has not imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 78 because the respondent had paid the ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
