9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee with an intention to evade discharge of service tax liability - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - ST/236-237/2007 - 41737-41738/2017 - Dated:- 26-7-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri. B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) - for the Revenue Ms. Vishnu Priya, Advocate - for the assessee ORDER Per: Bench Both these appeals ST/236/2007, ST/237/2007, emanate from the same impugned order, they are taken up for common disposal. 2. The brief facts of the cases are that M/s. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) are engaged in the manufacture of Soda Ash, Ammonium ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay or @ 2% of the service tax amount per month, whichever is higher. Hence Appeal No.ST/236/2007 by the Department. 4. On 26.7.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the assessee, Ms. Vishnu Priya, Ld. Advocate made oral and written submissions, which can be broadly summarized as under :- (i) The tax liability that has been confirmed against the appeals in respect of freight on salt, coal and lime procured by them are as follows :- Sl.No. Commodity Road freight/ (in Rs.) Rail freight (in Rs.) Amount (in Rs.) 1 Salt 50,34,333 Nil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Interest (In Rs.) Total (In Rs.) By Assessee 1 07 dt.31.07.06 1,96,075 17,028 2,13,103 2 10 dt.31.08.06 7,65,819 86,504 8,52,323 Total (a) 9,61,894 1,03,532 10,65,426 By Salt Vendors 1 Aug-05 dt.03.09.05 3,436 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thereafter there was a separate work order with M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd. to work as clearing and forwarding agent. Hence, contract is not for transportation, but for clearing and forwarding which the tax liability will have to be paid only by M/s. Sical Logistics. (vi) The proceedings are also hit by limitations, after audit was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 4.7.2005 and 30.1.2006. However, Show Cause Notice issued only on 21.2.2007. Hence extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. (vii) With extended period of limitation cannot be invoked under penalty under Section 78 can also be imposed. So also penalty under Section 76 and 77 are have also been imposed erroneously. Since the bonafides are clearly in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dors) the amount of ₹ 9,71,323/- and interest liability thereon of ₹ 1,03,532/-. The remaining tax liability on coal and lime will not arise, according to the appellant, since they had entered into contract for supply of the same with Clearing and Forwarding Agencies and accordingly tax liability on GTA would not arise. 8. In light of the above submissions, we are of the considered opinion, that the entire adjudication needs to be revisited to confirm or otherwise the veracity of the submissions and contentions of the appellant. That would be in the interests of justice. Accordingly, on the aspect of calculation of service tax liability, we remand the matter back to the adjujdicating authority for denovo consideration. Needle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
