2011 (2) TMI 577 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - GTA services - In the process of manufacturing, they require sugarcane which they procure from the farmers and they are having collection centres for the sugarcane - prima facie, the services availed by the applicants are not covered under the goods transport agency - the consignors and the consignees were different. In this case, the consignor and consignee is the sugar factory because the goods are first collected at the collection centre by the sugar factory and then transported to their factory - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of service tax demand against the applicant under the category of Goods Transport Agency.
2. Contention regarding the hiring of individual transport operators instead of goods transport agency services.
3. Requirement of a consignment note for providing service through a transport agency.

Analysis:
1. The judgment confirms a demand of service tax against the applicant under the category of Goods Transport Agency as the recipient of goods transport services. The applicants, who are sugar manufacturers, procure sugarcane from farmers and transport it to their factory using vehicles like tractors, trucks, and trolleys. The service tax demand is upheld based on this transportation activity falling under the goods transport agency category.

2. The advocate for the applicants argued that they hire individual transport operators, not a goods transport agency. Additionally, it was contended that no consignment note was issued for the transportation of sugarcane, which is a requirement for services provided through a transport agency. The Tribunal found that the services availed by the applicants were not covered under the goods transport agency, distinguishing the case from a previous precedent where consignors and consignees were different. In this case, the sugar factory acted as both the consignor and consignee, collecting goods at the center and then transporting them to the factory.

3. The Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the services availed by the applicants fell under the goods transport agency service, citing a previous Tribunal case. However, upon hearing the arguments and considering the facts, the Tribunal found that the applicants had made a prima facie case in their favor. The distinction in the roles of consignor and consignee in this case led to the conclusion that the services were not covered under the goods transport agency. As a result, the Tribunal granted a waiver of the entire service tax, interest, and penalty, staying the demand during the appeal process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal regarding the service tax demand, the nature of services availed by the applicants, and the requirement of a consignment note for services provided through a transport agency.