Krishak Bharti CoOperative Ltd. v. CCE & CST

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(ST) 2157 (CESTAT-Del) Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. v. CCE & CST FINANCE ACT, 1994 --Value of taxable services --Value of loading/unloading charges included in Goods Transport Agency ServicesLeviability----There was no charge of non-payment of service tax by the contractors of cargo handling services like loading/unloading, etc., in that case it must have paid service tax on the full value of service and if same was added to the transportation charges, the assessee would be entitled for abatement.--Assessee was engaged in manufacture of various kinds of fertilizers. Revenue alleged that the charges of loading/unloading staking/de-stacking fertilizers consignment transported by various transport contractors should also have been included in the value of services while discharging service tax liability on reverse charge basis. Assessee contended that it had duly discharged service tax liability on transportation charges paid by it to various transport contractors under reverse charge mechanism basis. *Held:* Since there was no charge of non-payment of service tax by the contractors of cargo handling services like loading/unloading, etc., in that case it must have paid service tax on the full value of service and if same was added to the transportation charges, the assessee would be entitled for abatement and as a result the Department would get less amount of service tax. Finance Act, 1994 Section 67 *REFERRED :* FAVOUR : In favour of assessee. A.Y. : FINANCE ACT, 1994 --Demand--Invocation of extended period of limitationSuppression of facts----Where all the details were in the knowledge of the department and the charge of suppression of facts or mis-declaration, etc., was not established by the department, therefore, extended period could not be invoked.--Revenue invoked extended period of limitation on the ground that the assessee had suppressed the facts. Assessee contended that demand was barred by limitation as there was no element of suppression of facts or mis-declaration on its part with an intent to evade service tax. *Held:* Since the assessee was being audited regularly by the Department and all the details were in the knowledge of the department and the charge of suppression of facts or mis-declaration, etc., were not established by the department, therefore, extended period could not be invoked. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(ST) 2157 (CESTAT-Del)

Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. v. CCE & CST

FINANCE ACT, 1994

--Value of taxable services --Value of loading/unloading charges included in Goods Transport Agency ServicesLeviability----There was no charge of non-payment of service tax by the contractors of cargo handling services like loading/unloading, etc., in that case it must have paid service tax on the full value of service and if same was added to the transportation charges, the assessee would be entitled for abatement.--Assessee was engaged in manufacture of various kinds of fertilizers. Revenue alleged that the charges of loading/unloading staking/de-stacking fertilizers consignment transported by various transport contractors should also have been included in the value of services while discharging service tax liability on reverse charge basis. Assessee contended that it had duly discharged service tax liability on transportation charges paid by it to various transport contractors under reverse charge mechanism basis. Held: Since there was no charge of non-payment of service tax by the contractors of cargo handling services like loading/unloading, etc., in that case it must have paid service tax on the full value of service and if same was added to the transportation charges, the assessee would be entitled for abatement and as a result the Department would get less amount of service tax.

Finance Act, 1994 Section 67

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In favour of assessee.

A.Y. :

FINANCE ACT, 1994

--Demand--Invocation of extended period of limitationSuppression of facts----Where all the details were in the knowledge of the department and the charge of suppression of facts or mis-declaration, etc., was not established by the department, therefore, extended period could not be invoked.--Revenue invoked extended period of limitation on the ground that the assessee had suppressed the facts. Assessee contended that demand was barred by limitation as there was no element of suppression of facts or mis-declaration on its part with an intent to evade service tax. Held: Since the assessee was being audited regularly by the Department and all the details were in the knowledge of the department and the charge of suppression of facts or mis-declaration, etc., were not established by the department, therefore, extended period could not be invoked.