9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'Penalty' and 'Recovery' from the suppliers on account of breach of the terms of the contract like delay in delivery, delivery of goods which are less weighed than agreed etc. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant is registered as a public sector company with the service tax department for 'Works Contract Service' and 'Legal Consultancy Service' as service recipient. During the audit of the records of the appellant on 27.06.2018 and 28.06.2018 for the period from October, 2015 to June, 2017, it was found that they had recovered the amount under the head of 'Penalty' and 'Recovery' from their contractors amounting to Rs.17,84,65,282/- and did not discharge the service tax liability amounting to Rs.2,39,18,841/-. 3. The issue in the present app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STAT New Delhi (viii) Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Ltd. Vs. Prinicpal Commissioner, CGST & CE, Bhopal 2023 (385) ELT 152 (Tri.-Del.) (ix) Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Jaipur Final Order No. 59900/2024 dated 26.11.2024. 3. In the case of South Eastern Coalfields, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal after considering the provision of Section 65B(44) defining 'service', Section 66E(e) enumerating the 'declared services' and the provisions of Section 67 dealing with the valuation of taxable service for charging service tax and referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. M/s. Bhayana Builders 2018 (2) TMI 1325, Unio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 11.07.2023, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn in view of the statement made by the learned ASG. The aforesaid view has been repeatedly followed by the Tribunal in subsequent decisions, referred to above and also in the case of the appellant itself, where the demand of service tax towards penalty for non-compliance with terms and conditions of tender was set aside. 5. There is no reason to differ with the settled principles of law as enunciated by the decision in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. We therefore hold that the amount recovered by the appellant towards penalty is not a consideration for any activity which has been undertaken by the appellant and as a result there is no 'service' in terms of Section 65B( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
