2011 (2) TMI 879 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - GTA service - Notification No.36/2004 dated 31.12.2004 - assessee has produced evidence in respect of some transport companies indicating payment of service tax by them. This evidence do not indicate that payment includes service tax relating to transportation involving the present appellants - it is an appropriate case to invoke the provisions of Section 80 to set aside the penalties imposed upon the appellants - Appeal is disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the appellants to pay service tax for Goods Transport Agency Service.
2. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78.
3. Evidence of payment of service tax by transporters.
4. Applicability of Notification No.36/2004 dated 31.12.2004.
5. Invocation of Section 80 to set aside penalties.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the liability of the appellants, manufacturers of 'Mosquito Coil,' to pay service tax for using Goods Transport Agency Service. The appellants had not paid service tax amounting to Rs.37,009 for the service availed during a specific period. The original authority confirmed the service tax demand and imposed penalties, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The authorized signatory for the appellants argued that in the initial stages of the levy of Goods Transport Agency service, confusion existed regarding the party responsible for paying service tax. They claimed to have paid both the freight and service tax to the transporters. Some transporters provided evidence of paying service tax, while others faced challenges in providing specific documentation. The appellants ceased manufacturing activity post a certain date and argued that since the transporters paid service tax, no liability should be imposed on them, and penalties should be waived.

3. The SDR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that as per Notification No.36/2004, the appellants were liable to pay service tax since they paid the freight and met other conditions. Although evidence of some transport companies paying service tax was presented, it did not directly relate to the transportation services for the appellants. The Tribunal upheld the decision to demand service tax from the appellants and the imposition of interest. However, considering the early stages of the levy of Goods Transport Agency service and evidence of some service providers paying service tax, the Tribunal invoked Section 80 to set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants.

4. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of by upholding the demand for service tax with interest while setting aside the penalties imposed on the appellants. The judgment clarified the liability of the appellants, the applicability of relevant notifications, and the invocation of statutory provisions to address penalty issues, providing a comprehensive analysis of the legal aspects involved in the case.