2010 (8) TMI 220 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant engaged in forwarding natural gas to various bulk shippers comprising industries as power, fertilizer, steel and chemical plants which require natural gas as fuel or feedstock - transmit the natural gas by pipeline system in its gaseous form. For the said purpose, either natural gas supplier or the user entered into Gas Transmission Agreement (GTA for short) with them for the purposes of transporting the natural gas from supply source to a point where it can be utilized - Service tax was introduced for the first time in respect of services falling under the category of Transport of the Goods through pipeline or other conduit service as defined under Section 65(105)(zzz) of Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 16-6-05 - appellant got themselves registered with Service Tax Department and started paying service tax in respect of their services under the category - Revenue is of the view that as per GTA agreement the shipper is deemed to have custody of the gas prior to its delivery to the transporter at the entry point, and after its re-delivery by the transporter at any exit point - Held that - appellants are not having any warehouse, are not raising invoice on behalf of the suppliers, are not responsible for payment of the amount to their supplier - appellants are only in transportation of the gas through pipe line - confirmation of service tax prior to the said date, cannot be upheld. Tribunal s decision in the case of Oil India Limited referred supra, duly covers the issue - allow the appeal of the appellant

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of service tax liability for services provided prior to the introduction of service tax.
2. Classification of services under the category of "Clearing & Forwarding Agent" for taxation purposes.
3. Application of legal principles and precedents in determining service tax liability.
4. Consideration of limitations on demand for service tax.

Issue 1: Interpretation of service tax liability for services provided prior to the introduction of service tax.
The case involved a dispute regarding the liability of the appellant for service tax prior to the introduction of service tax for services related to the transportation of natural gas through pipelines. The Revenue contended that the appellant was liable to pay service tax under the category of "Clearing & Forwarding Agent" for the period before the introduction of service tax. The appellant argued that their services became taxable only after the specific introduction of service tax for such services.

Issue 2: Classification of services under the category of "Clearing & Forwarding Agent" for taxation purposes.
The Commissioner classified the activities of the appellant under the Gas Transmission Agreement (GTA) as falling under the category of "Clearing & Forwarding Agent" services. The Commissioner emphasized that the activities of receipt, custody, security, transportation, and dispatch of gas undertaken by the appellant were directly or indirectly connected with Clearing & Forwarding operations, making them liable for service tax under this category.

Issue 3: Application of legal principles and precedents in determining service tax liability.
The Tribunal referred to the case of Oil India Ltd. v. CCE, Dibrugarh, where it was held that the introduction of a new service for taxation purposes implies that the service was not liable to tax prior to the specified date. The Tribunal also highlighted that the appellant had been paying service tax on the transportation of gas through pipelines from the date of introduction of the service. The Tribunal emphasized the need to follow legal precedents and principles in determining service tax liability.

Issue 4: Consideration of limitations on demand for service tax.
The Commissioner rejected the appellant's argument that the demand for service tax was barred by limitation, citing suppression on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal, however, found that the demand for service tax prior to the introduction of the service was not sustainable based on legal principles and precedents. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the appellant, concluding that the confirmation of service tax prior to the introduction of the service was not justified.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal based on the interpretation of service tax liability, classification of services, application of legal principles, and limitations on demand for service tax.