9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es for non-compliance of contract, cannot be considered as consideration for tolerating an act and hence, not leviable to service tax u/s 66E (e) of the Finance Act. The contracts nowhere provided obligation on the assessee to refrain from an act or tolerate an act or a situation and flow of consideration thereof. Such liquidated damages/penalty cannot be considered as receipts towards any service per say, since neither assessee is carrying on any activity to receive compensation nor there can be an intention of other party to breach or violate the contract and suffer a loss. This Tribunal relied on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tara Chand vs Balkishan [ 1963 (1) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] . Thus, we find that the issue herein is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es from the supplier(s) as and when applicable and have been declaring these amount under the head of other income. Some amount is also received as notice period pay recovered from the employee and miscellaneous recoveries under the bond from management trainees . 3. It appeared to revenue that the amounts so collected by the Appellant fall under the category of declared services under section 66E (e) of the Finance Act, 1994. A show cause notice dated 01.11.2017 was issued for the period July 2012 to March 2017, invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground that the penalty/liquidated damages recovered from the suppliers etc. a declared service, as per Section 65B (22) of the Finance Act, 1994 and therefore, falls under the scop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST/30332/2021 Show Cause Notice Dated 01.11.2017 Dated 12.07.2019 Impugned Order Order-in-Original No. HYD-EXCUS-001-COM012-27-18 dated 23.01.2018 Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-SVTAX-MD-AP2- 006 TO 008-20-21-ST Relevant period 1st July 2012 to 31st March 2017 April 2017 to June 2017 Demand Rs. 23,87,70,037/- Rs. 48,61,553/- 6. Being aggrieved the Appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges that the issue is no longer res integra and under similar facts and circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd, Salem vs Commissioner of GST Central Excise, 2021(7) TMI 1092, Chennai, held that no service tax is payable on the amount collected towards liquidated damages, following the ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
