TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes to the expenses in relation to the GTA services availed by the Appellant for the transportation of goods to customers of the Appellant. Further there has been no contrary evidence produced before us to deny the above facts. Also from the reconciliations produced, it is clear that the amounts as disclosed by the Appellant for GTA services in its ST 3 returns are much more than the amounts of vehicle hire charges and that there are other ledgers also on which tax has been paid under GTA services. The claim of the department that the amount under vehicle hire charges does not corelate to the amount paid under GTA services cannot be accepted as no visible efforts have been made by the department to corelate the same whereas the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t are also not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.76363 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO.75115/2022 - Dated:- 23-2-2022 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Ankit Kanodia, Advocate for the Appellant Shri J.Chattopadhyay, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original dated 12th March 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner, where by the demand of service tax of ₹ 2,44,41,749/-has been confirmed for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16,along with interest and penalty as proposed in the Show Cause Notice dated 27th March,2018. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cle hire charges related to expenses of goods transport agency for outward and inward freights on which tax under the head of transport of goods by road agency services has been paid by the Appellant. Further as regards the amounts paid to director for car hire charges, the said amount has already suffered service tax under Rent-a-Cab service and disclosed in ST-3 returns also, as filed by the Appellant. The Appellant further contended that the said show cause cum demand notice was substantially barred by limitation. The adjudicating authority, still proceeded to confirm the demand of recovery of Service tax along with interest and penalty as proposed in the show cause cum demand notice. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (v) That the Appellant has already provided detailed reconciliation for the same certified by an independent CA before the Adjudicating authority which has been incorrectly interpreted by the Ld. Adjudicating authority. (vi) That there is no suppression of facts at all by the Appellant and hence the extended period cannot be invoked. The learned Advocate has also produced copies of the statement showing payment of service tax with challan numbers for car hire charges paid to directors, copies of the statement of summary of GTA service in ST 3 return vis- -vis the Vehicle hire charges and Copies of the ledger of motor car expenses for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16 along with sample invoice copies. It is his submission that the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department that the amount under vehicle hire charges does not corelate to the amount paid under GTA services cannot be accepted as no visible efforts have been made by the department to corelate the same whereas the Appellant has produced all possible reconciliations for the same and on account of no contrary evidence being produced we are inclined to accept the contentions of the Appellant. Further it is also observed that the demand was raised under the Rent-a-Cab service under reverse charge mechanism without actually identifying the supplier of service whereas the documents produced as part of appeal paper book and written submission shows the nature of expenses clearly not to be one of Rent-a-Cab service at all. Thus, the deeming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|