M\/s. Coimbatore Lorry Urimaiyalargal Pothunala Trust Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1564 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 25-2-2019
Appeal No. ST\/661\/2012 – Final Order No. 40372\/2019
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nMs. D. Naveena, Advocate for the Appellant
\nMs. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe appellant was issued a show cause notice dated 9.12.2005 demanding service tax under Business Auxiliary Service for the period from 1.8.2003 to 31.3.2005. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n to furnish evidence with regard to the reimbursable expenses. The second argument was with regard to the penalties imposed. She submitted that the adjudicating authority has imposed higher amount of penalty than that of the service tax demand confirmed. She submitted that the appellant was under bonafide belief that the activity does not fall under BAS. Therefore, the appellant did not discharge the service tax during the relevant period and was contesting the same before various forums. Therefore, she pleaded that the penalties may be set aside. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n to be remanded to the adjudicating authority who shall consider whether any reimbursable expenses are to be excluded from the taxable value that has been arrived by the adjudicating authority. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Coimbatore Lorry Urimaiyalargal Pothunala Trust Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise CoimbatoreService Tax2019 (2) TMI 1564 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 25-2-2019Appeal No. ST\/661\/2012 – Final Order No. 40372\/2019Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. D. Naveena, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. … Continue reading “M\/s. Coimbatore Lorry Urimaiyalargal Pothunala Trust Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17038","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Ms. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that the appellant has not taken the plea of reimbursable expenses before the lower authorities. It is also <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. With regard to the penalties, ld. counsel submitted that the appellants were under bonafide belief that the said activity did not fall under BAS. From the litigations taken up by the appellant, we find that the said contention requires to be considered. For this reason, we find that the penalties imposed are unwarranted and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do.
\n7. From the foregoing discussions, we hold that the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of looking into whether the reimbursable expenses are t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n