The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench held that a consignment note is enough to prove transportation for CHA. The department confirmed the service tax demand against Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd(Appellant).
The appellant challenged the denial of refund of Rs.1,07,03,293/- towards service tax and education for the service of transportation, which the amount paid by them was under protest and hence the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not be applicable. Per contra, Revenue challenged the dropping of penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The Tribunal bench comprising Mr P. Anjani Kumar, Technical Member, and Mr P. Dinesha, Judicial Member observed that the explanation given to the consignment note matches with the contents extracted in paragraph 13 of the Order-in-Original read conjointly with Rule 4B of Service Tax Rules,1994.
Definition under Section 65(50b) would also refer to issuing of the consignment note, “by whatever name called” and hence if for convenience, termed as “pay slips”, that by itself would not result in any other thing other than a consignment note. The bench found a similar view in Dalveer Singh Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2008(9) STR 491 (Tri. Del.)] and by Tribunal Bench at New Delhi in the case of Jain Carrying Corporation Vs CCE, Jaipur [2019(24) GSTL 376 (Tri. Del.)] 5.Insofar as Revenue’s appeal is concerned, the bench finds that penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 are not automatic and are governed by Section 80 and the assessee has proved reasonable cause for its failure which has been duly accepted by the adjudicating authority. The tribunal didn’t find any merit in the appeal filed by the Department and both the appeals were dismissed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
