9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent ORDER P. ANJANI KUMAR : All but one of the above appellants have provided one bus each along with driver on hire to PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (PRTC) under the 'Kilometer scheme'; The buses were used as public transport on the Route permit in the name of PRTC; one Shri Surjit Khan provided three buses; the expenditure on account of diesel, repair & maintenance, salary of the bus-driver, etc. was borne by the appellants; the Conductor of the bus -employee of PRTC- issued tickets to the passengers, and the cash collected from passengers against issued tickets went to PRTC account; The custody and physical possession of the bus remained with the appellants; the appellants were supposed to make available their bus a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and the quantum of penalty which would be proportionate to the Tax confirmed. 3. In the remand proceedings, Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned orders, dated 9-10-2013 and corrigendum dated 22-10-2013, again upheld the demands of service tax along with interest; equal penalty under Section 78; penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 77; setting aside penalty under section 76 and holding that the gross value of the first consecutive gross receipts, and not the value after abatement under Notification No.1/ 2006 ST, has to be considered for the purpose of calculation threshold limit under notification number 6/ 2005 ST. Hence, these appeals. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the value of 60% of the gross receipt, exempt fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.08.20 23, holding that if 60% of the consideration Received by the Apple is excluded, they fall under the exempted category and as such the appellants therein, fall within the limit of small-scale exemption and no service tax payable by them. The facts of the case in the present appeals are identical to the one decided by this Bench. Therefore, the appellants need not pay any Service Tax and the demands are liable to be set aside and no liability arrives against any of the appellants except Shri Surjit Khan (ST/50205/2014). In the case of Shri Surjit Khan, the liability reduces to Rs 1,38,893 as against 1,91,695 demanded and confirmed. Learned counsel further submits that the penalty under section 77 and 78 needs to be set aside in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that for the purpose of calculating the threshold limit, 60% of the consideration exempt, vide Notification No.01/2006, should not be taken into account. We find that if 60% of the consideration received by the appellants is excluded, they fall under the exempted category and as such, are not liable to pay any tax. Therefore, we find that the appeals succeed on this count. Ongoing through the agreements relied upon by the appellants, we find that the appellants have simply provided their buses to M/s PRTC on hire and have received remuneration on per-kilometre basis; there is no arrangement of renting. We find that Hon'ble High Court of Uttrakhand in the case of R.S. Travels (supra) held that when there is a contract of hire and there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
