Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (3) TMI 505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ided the issue in respect of similarly placed appellants vide Final Order No.60311-60317/2023 dated 30.08.2023 [2023 (9) TMI 1254 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH]. The Bench observed that 'the gross value of the taxable service rendered by each of the appellants is less than the threshold limit of Rs.10 Lakhs as prescribed under Notification No.06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 after giving allowance to the exemption for 60% of the gross receipt in terms of Notification No.01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006.' While computing the threshold exemption limit under N/N. 06/2005 dated 01.03.2005, abatement available under N/N.01/2006 should not be included for arriving at gross value of service. In view of the same, all the impugned orders are liable to be set a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... home; the appellants received remuneration from the PRTC on the basis of Kilometers travelled during a fortnight; Show Cause Notices were issued and the demands of service tax under the "Rent a Cab Operators Service'' were raised and were confirmed by the Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner along with interest & penalties. 2. Aggrieved with the Orders-in-original, the appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the Orders- in-Original by holding that penalties under both Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act were not imposable on or after 10.05.2008 and reducing the penalty under Section 77 of the Act to Rs. 2,000. On appeals filed against the Orders-in-Appeal, the appellants filed appeals the Hon'ble CEST New Delhi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubmits that the transaction by the appellants involves both material as well as services; the service tax is payable on the service component, if the material component is identified and billed separately in terms of Notification No. 12/2003; this may not be practical in all situations; therefore, certain presumptive apportionment of services and goods have been provided, whereby a specific portion of the grass amount is deemed to be the value of the taxable service and the balance is exempted; a perusal of the Notification No. 1/2006-ST clearly shows that the government of India has issued the said Notification with a view to levying Service Tax only on the service component of the specified taxable services. In the case of the appellants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rned Authorized Representative reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. Brief issue involved in the case is to decide whether the abatement given by Notification No.01/2006 should be included for the purposes of calculation of threshold limit for availing small-scale exemption under Notification No.06/2005 dated 01.03.2005. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants, we find that this Bench has decided the issue in respect of similarly placed appellants vide Final Order No.60311-60317/2023 dated 30.08.2023. The Bench observed as follows: 6. On hearing the rival contentions and having perused the records of the case, we find that the gross value of the taxable serv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the issue of classification of services also. When we find that the appeals succeed on both counts, the question of penalties does not arise. 8. In view of the above, we find that the issue is no longer res integra therefore, we find that while computing the threshold exemption limit under Notification No.06/2005 dated 01.03.2005, abatement available under Notification No.01/2006 should not be included for arriving at gross value of service. In view of the same, all the impugned orders are liable to be set aside except the one in the case of Shri Surjit Khan (ST/50205/2014) wherein some duty liability arises even after excluding the abatement of 60%. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the issue being interpretational in nat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates