2018 (11) TMI 745 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – Business Auxiliary Service – Commission on Consignment Sale for the period 2007 to March 2012 – demand of service tax – Held that:- Since the appellants have not collected any Service Tax from the person to whom the services were provided, Cum Tax benefit should be given while calculating the Service Tax liability under this category – Further, the Cenvat Credit on input services used for providing the aforesaid output service is also allowable.
–
Renting of Immovable Property Service – Held that:- The appellants have not collected Service Tax from the tenants and hence, Cum Duty Benefit has to be given while calculating the service tax liability under this category.
–
Transport of Goods by Road Service under Reverse Charge – Held that:- Some of the consignments are covered vide Notification No.34/2004-ST dated 03/12/2004 which grants full exemption in the following two situations:- (i) Where the gross amount charged on all consignmen
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f remand. – MA(EH)-76964/2018 in Appeal No. ST/75430/2018 – MO/75825/2018 & FO/76662/2018 – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Arijit Chakrabarti & Nilotpal Chowdhury, Advocates, for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd. (A. R.) for the Revenue ORDER This appeal was listed before the Single Member Bench on 31/05/2018 for hearing. The Bench directed the registry to list the appeal before the Division Bench. The appellant filed the Miscellaneous Application for early hearing on 12/09/2018 vide MA(EH) 76964/2018. The matter was listed for Early Hearing. After hearing both sides, the Miscellaneous Application for Early Hearing was allowed. Further, with the consent of both sides, the appeal itself was taken up for hearing. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Partnership firm mainly engaged in tailoring and dress making. During the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12, the appellant w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ut scrutinizing the relevant documents such as bills, ledgers etc. The Ld. Advocate vehemently argued that the Adjudicating Authority has erred by not following the relevant provisions of the statute relating to cum-tax Valuation and exemption/abatement available to the appellant. It is his submission that even the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 4,16,374/-, has not been allowed which is legally available to the appellant on the basis of available documents even though when there was no allegation in this regard in the Show Cause Notice. The Ld. Adv. further argued that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed regarding the claim of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 4,16,374/- in the impugned order though a quantification sheet for the Cenvat Credit as available to the appellant, duly supported by the invoices were placed before the First Appellate Authority. Regarding the invocation of the longer period, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the entire demand is based solely on the bas
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rits deduction from the taxable value. Further, there are number of individual consignments below the Threshold Exemption Limit (Rs.750/Rs.1500) which also merits deduction but have not been considered by the Lower Authority. 6. Further, the benefit of cum-tax quantification of tax liability as available under Section 67 (2) of the Act should have been extended to the appellant assessee. 7. The Ld. DR reiterates the orders of the Lower Authorities. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 9. We find that the entire demand of Service Tax is as under:- SI No. Category of Service Amount of Service Tax including Cess 01. Business Auxiliary Service (Commission on Consignment Sale for the period 2007 to March 2012 7,72,859/- 02. Renting of Immovable Property Service 4,91,543/- 03. Transport of Goods by Road Service under Reverse Charge 1,49,466/- Now, we take up each issue one by one. Regarding the demand under Business Auxiliary Service , we find that the appellant firm had enter
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Road, some of the consignments are covered vide Notification No.34/2004-ST dated 03/12/2004 which grants full exemption in the following two situations:- (i) Where the gross amount charged on all consignments transported in a goods carriage does not exceed ₹ 1500/-. (ii) Where the gross amount charged on individual consignment transported in a goods carriage does not exceed ₹ 750/-. Further, abatement of 75% on freight paid was allowed in the Show Cause Notice. After calculating the Service liability under all the above categories and complying with the observations made by the Bench in the foregoing paragraphs, the demand may be communicated to the appellant assessee. Further, the amount of ₹ 13,87,701/- as paid by the appellant assessee should be appropriated against the demand, so calculated. However, as the issues involved interpretation of statutory provisions, and the fact that the payments have been made for the undisputed amount of Service Tax and the Departme
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =