9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 421 - AT - Service TaxDemand - transportation of sugar cane from collection centres to the factory - Held that - Notification No.18/2003-Service Tax, dated 21-8-2003 has been issued which exempts commission or installation services provided by a commissioning or installation agency other than a commercial concern, thus accordingly, the commissioning or installation services provided by an individual will be exempt from service tax - As individual farmers who owned tractors or lorries either in their name or the names of their family members and who transported sugar cane from collection centre to their factory were not commercial concerns engaged in transportation of the goods no point of levying service tax - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Whether the appellant should have paid service tax on transportation of sugar cane from collection centers to the factory during a specific period as a recipient of the service. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Liability to Pay Service Tax The dispute revolved around whether the appellants were liable to pay service tax on the transportation of sugar cane from collection centers to the factory during a specific period. The liability was placed on the recipient of the service by Rule 2(1)(d)(xvii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The provision was challenged in a previous case, and the Supreme Court initially held it to be ultra vires the provisions of the Act. Subsequently, the provision was validated by the Finance Act, 2000, but without provisions for demanding unpaid tax. The Finance Act, 2003, retrospectively amended the rules to require recipients to file returns and pay the due tax. Issue 2: Interpretation of Taxable Service Entry The main contention of the appellants was that the service in question was not covered by the entry in the Finance Act, 1994, under which the department sought tax payment. The appellants argued that individual farmers who transported sugar cane were not commercial concerns engaged in goods transportation, as per the relevant entry. The interpretation of the term "commercial concern" was crucial in determining the tax liability. Issue 3: Interpretation of "Commercial Concern" The argument focused on whether individuals who owned tractors and transported sugar cane could be considered "commercial concerns" for the purpose of tax liability. The Revenue argued that the term "commercial" should be understood in the context of trade, commerce, or profit-making activities. However, the appellants contended that the scope of the entry was not amended by subsequent Finance Acts, and individuals did not fall under the category of commercial concerns engaged in goods transportation. Issue 4: Precedents and Tribunal Decisions The Tribunal considered previous decisions, such as Anuradha Jain Vs. CCE and CCE Vs. R.S. Financial Services, which supported the view that individuals should not be classified as "commercial concerns" for tax purposes. The Tribunal found merit in the appeal based on these precedents and allowed the appeal, granting consequential benefits to the appellants. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, pronounced on 18.4.2012, analyzed the liability to pay service tax, interpretation of taxable service entry, the meaning of "commercial concern," and relevant precedents to decide in favor of the appellants, granting them relief in the form of allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.
|
