2010 (7) TMI 300 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - Goods Transport Agency - Service Tax on the Goods Transport Agency from whom he has received the services - case is regarding eligibility of services of goods transport given by goods transporters and transport operators - remanded the matter back for limited purpose of quantification of the duty after granting 75% abatement to the appellant - Held that - issue of consignment note is mandatory but did not allow the appeal filed by the appellants - no merit in the application filed by the assessee - appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rectification of mistake in Final Order regarding liability to pay Service Tax on Goods Transport Agency services.
2. Whether services rendered by Goods transporters and Transport operators can be subjected to levy of service tax.
3. Applicability of previous judgments regarding eligibility of 75% abatement and liability to pay service tax on services received from private truck operators.
4. Appeal for refund of service tax paid under protest.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an application for rectification of mistake in a Final Order regarding the liability to pay Service Tax on services received from a Goods Transport Agency. The Bench had previously held the appellant liable for the tax but remanded the matter for quantification after granting 75% abatement.

2. The main issue in the appeal was whether services rendered by Goods transporters and Transport operators could be subjected to service tax even if the appellant did not engage the services of a Goods Transport Agency. The Tribunal analyzed previous cases to determine the applicability of the tax.

3. The Tribunal examined the applicability of previous judgments regarding eligibility for 75% abatement and the liability to pay service tax on services received from private truck operators. It was noted that the issue raised by the appellants aligned with the facts of a previous case where it was held that no service tax was payable on services received from private truck operators.

4. The appellant had paid the service tax under protest after availing 75% abatement and sought a refund through an appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification of mistake as the appellant had not raised the specific point about receiving services only from Truck Operators or Transporters in the initial appeal, and thus, there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of raising all relevant points in the initial appeal and adhering to the provisions of the law. The application for rectification was dismissed due to the absence of new grounds raised by the appellant in the original appeal.