2013 (4) TMI 321 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax liability on the GTA services - The issue involved in this case needs to be factually appreciated whether the inputs which were delivered in the factory premises were delivered by courier agency by a transport agency, it is better that the adjudicating authority considers the evidences in its correct perspective and come to conclusion.Held that - Matter remanded back back to the adjudicating authority

Summary

Issues involved: Service Tax liability on GTA services received for inputs delivered to factory premises.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, delivered by Mr. M.V. Ravindran, addressed the issue of Service Tax liability on GTA services received for inputs delivered to the factory premises. The appellant contended that the demand for Service Tax pertained to courier services, not transport services, for the relevant period. The appellant presented invoices for 2011 but lacked documentation for the period in question. The tribunal emphasized the need for a factual assessment to determine whether the inputs were delivered by a courier agency or a transport agency. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a reevaluation while ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice.

The tribunal highlighted the importance of factual appreciation in distinguishing between courier and transport services for the delivery of inputs to the factory premises. The tribunal acknowledged the submissions made by both sides and stressed the necessity for the adjudicating authority to consider all evidence accurately to reach a well-founded conclusion. By setting aside the initial order and remanding the case for reconsideration, the tribunal aimed to ensure a fair and comprehensive assessment of the issue at hand.

In conclusion, the tribunal, with the consent of both parties, disposed of the appeal after granting a waiver of pre-deposit due to the narrow compass of the issue. The stay petition and appeals were consequently disposed of, and the matter was referred back to the adjudicating authority for a thorough reevaluation, emphasizing the importance of following natural justice principles in the process.