9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/2012 covering a period from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 by invoking the extended time proviso under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and again classifying the activity undertaken by the appellant under the Goods Transport Agency Service. The department has been aware about the activity of the appellant since very beginning and, therefore, we do not find any justification in invoking the extended time proviso under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Secondly, since the issue of the classification of the activity undertaken by the appellant have already been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) as we have been told there is not appeal against the said order, we feel that the subordinate officers should have shown some sense of discipline and would have respected the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the matter. The Commissioner (Appeals) need to take all the three show cause notices for consideration at a time and issue is pertaining to the classification of the service on the basis of the documents available in the adjudication file of the department as well as with the appellant need to be scrutinized to reach at a conclusion as to whether the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST/52108 of 2015 V (ST)SCN/ 46/JDR/2012 dated 04/03/2013 16/05/2008 to 30/09/2011 2,79,818/- an amount of ₹ 1,22,185/-+ interest of ₹ 41,415/- deposited by appellant 201/ST/2013 dated 01/08/2013 78 (SLM)/ ST/JPR/2015 dated 13/03/2015 Tangible goods supply. So far as the show cause notice dated 09/10/2012 and show cause notice dated 18/04/2013 as mentioned on the Sl. No. (i) and (ii) in the table above, it has been alleged that the assessee has provided goods transport agency service to air force station at Jodhpur, however, they have not discharged their service tax liability on the same. The show cause notice as mentioned at Sl. No. (i) covers the period 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 (upto September 2011) the total demand of service tax under this show cause notice is of ₹ 59,217/-. The matter has been adjudicated and has reached upto the level of Commissioner (Appeals) who has not given any benefit to the assessee. The basic contention of the appellant have been that they have supplied only heavy vehicles and cars for use by the air force station at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar as the show cause notice at Sl. No. (i) is concerned. So far as show cause notice and appeal mentioned at Sl. No. (iii) is concerned, it covers the period from 16/05/2008 to 30 September 2011 it has been the contention of the department that the appellant have provided certain vehicles to M/s Indian Oil Company, Jodhpur, in which the appellant have charged an amount of ₹ 54,000/- per month per vehicle as fixed charges + ₹ 12.50 per k.m. as the operating charges for supply of such vehicles. The department has entertained the view that the assessee has not discharged their service tax liability on the gross amount received by them from Indian Oil Company because the operating charges have not included by the appellant in the taxable value for determination of the service tax. Accordingly, a demand of ₹ 2,79,818/- has been made on them which has been got confirmed up to the level Commissioner (Appeals). So far as the show cause notice at Sl. No. (iii) above-mentioned is concerned, it has vehemently been argument on the part of the appellant that the show cause notice as mentioned at Sl. No. (i), which have covered the period 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 (upto September ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Secondly, since the issue of the classification of the activity undertaken by the appellant have already been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) as we have been told there is not appeal against the said order, we feel that the subordinate officers should have shown some sense of discipline and would have respected the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the matter. However, we want to add here that the Advocate appearing for the appellant have not produced the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before us. So far as the appeal mentioned at Sl. No. 3, the basic issue of valuation of the supply of the tangible goods service has been made by invoking the extended time proviso, however, here also we feel that the period of demand is already covered by the previous show cause notice dated 09/10/2012, as mentioned at the Sl. No. 1 in the table. So far as the appeal at Sl. No. 2 is concerned, we feel that the Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the issue has not appreciated the facts which has been mentioned before him by the appellant has confirmed the demand against the appellant without giving any concrete findings on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
