2012 (9) TMI 561 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit demand on freight amount mentioned in the invoices under which the inputs were supplied to the appellant - demand is based on Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - lower authorities have held that the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax on GTA Service which was used for supply of their inputs by M/s. RIL Held that - Sub-clause (v) was inserted in Rule 2(1)(d) only on 3.12.2004 and the same cast Service Tax liability on the person paying the freight - Appellant did not pay the freight and therefore there is no tax liability on their part - waiver of pre-deposit and stay granted

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a Service Tax case.
2. Liability for Service Tax on freight amount under Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
3. Appeal dismissal on grounds of limitation.

Issue 1: Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a Service Tax case:
The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning a Service Tax demand of Rs. 2,05,494/- and penalties for the period 2004-2005 to 2008-09. The tax demand was based on the freight amount mentioned in the invoices for inputs supplied by M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. The appellant contended that they did not pay the freight as it was covered by the input supplier, thus absolving them of Service Tax liability. The appellate authority considered the appeal on merits despite being filed beyond the statutory period, which was challenged by the Additional Commissioner. However, the authority found that the appellant did not pay the freight, leading to the grant of waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the adjudged dues.

Issue 2: Liability for Service Tax on freight amount under Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994:
The dispute centered around the interpretation of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, which imposed Service Tax liability on the person paying the freight. This clause was introduced on 3.12.2004. The appellant argued that since they did not pay the freight, they should not be held liable for Service Tax on the GTA Service. The lower authorities had held the appellant accountable for paying Service Tax on the GTA Service used for input supply by M/s. RIL. However, the appellate tribunal found that the appellant's case had prima facie merit as they did not bear the freight cost, leading to the decision to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the dues.

Issue 3: Appeal dismissal on grounds of limitation:
The dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation was a crucial aspect of the case. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal not only on merits but also due to a delay of two days in filing the appeal, which was considered time-barred. The appellate authority's decision to entertain the appeal on merits despite the delay was questioned. The tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the power to condone the delay of two days, which fell within the condonable period as per the statute. The tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines but ultimately focused on the substantive issue of Service Tax liability based on the interpretation of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) in granting relief to the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the tribunal's decision regarding waiver of pre-deposit, Service Tax liability, and appeal dismissal on grounds of limitation.