9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled to abatement of 75% under Notification No.32/2004-ST dt. 03/12/2004 as amended by Notification No. 01/2006-ST. The issue is squarely is covered in the decision in the case of M/S. SREE KANYA COMBINES VERSUS CCE, VISAKHAPATNAM-II [ 2016 (8) TMI 848 - CESTAT HYDERABAD ] where it was held that The service tax on renting of immovable property was not paid as the issue was contentious an there were decisions in favour of assessee also. Thus, present is a fit case for invoking the provision of Section 80 and accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for the limited purpose of calculating the Service Tax liability after considering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant that they had been paying the freight only on vouchers to various persons and not to any goods Transport Agency. The persons who were receiving the freight do not issue any consignment note. During the audit of the Appellant assessee premises in the month of June 2009 conducted by the officers of Central Excise and Service Tax, the appellant assessee was made to understand that they fall under the category of Good Transport Agency under Reverse Charge Mechanism and are liable to pay Service tax on each and every consignment note over the freight amount of ₹ 750/-. Accordingly, the appellant Assessee calculated its liability and paid the Service Tax of ₹ 68,210/- along with interest of ₹ 6,835/-. It is the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o abatement of 75% under Notification No.32/2004-ST dt. 03/12/2004 as amended by Notification No. 01/2006-ST. In the case of Lakshminarayana Mining Co. v. CST Bangalore 2009 (16) STR 691 (Tri-Bang): 2010-TIOL-122CESTAT-BANG, it was held that as the services have been provided by the goods transport owners the same are not liable to service tax. The Tribunal held the above view keeping in mind the speech of the Finance Minister while introducing the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2004 stated that I may clarify that there is no intention to levy Service Tax on truck owner or truck operators . Further the ratio of this case has been followed in K.M.B Granities Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE Salem 2010 919) STR 437 (Tri-Chenai): 2010-TIOL-61-CESTAT-MAD. Further in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l judgments in favour of assesses also. The relevant portion of the Finance Bill in introducing sub-section (2) of Section 80 as quoted in the appeal is as under 6. It is seen that if the assessee fails to avail the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 80, then the assessee has to be treated as though subsection (@) of Section 80 did not exist. It nowhere says that in case of failure to avail benefit under subsection (2) of Section 80, the benefit under sub-section (1) of Section 80 will be taken away. As per subsection (1) of Section 80 if the assessee proves reasonable cause for failure, then no penalty shall be imposable In the case of Mahesh Vakatawarmal Rathod (Supra), the Tribunal in a similar set of facts has set aside the penalty i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
