9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 99 - AT - Service TaxDemand - Services of Goods Transport Agency - Amount involved in this case is small, i.e. Rs.68,530/- and we do not want to differ from the earlier stay order passed by the Tribunal and therefore we grant waiver of predeposit of dues arising from the impugned order and stay its collection during the pendency of the appeal - Following decision of Andal Motors Vs. CCE 2009 (1) TMI 118 - CESTAT CHENNAI and A1 Chemicals Vs. CCE 2009 (6) TMI 99 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - stay granted.
Issues: Liability to pay service tax on services of Goods Transport Agency; Interpretation of Notification No. 35/2004-ST
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the issue at hand was the liability to pay service tax on services provided by a Goods Transport Agency. The applicant, a proprietary concern registered as a manufacturer under the Central Excise Act, had not paid tax on such services during a specific period. The Revenue contended that the applicant, as the consignor of the goods who paid the freight to the transporter, should have been liable to pay service tax. A show-cause notice was issued, and after the first appeal, a demand of tax amounting to Rs.68,530/- was confirmed against the applicant, along with interest and penalties. The applicant argued that as per Notification No. 35/2004-ST, the liability to pay service tax arises only if falling under one of the seven specified categories mentioned in the Notification. Since a proprietary ship concern was not among these categories, the liability should have been on the consignee, in this case, TNEB. The applicant cited precedents where waiver of predeposit had been granted in similar cases. On the other hand, the learned AR for Revenue contended that if the consignor or consignee falls under any of the seven specified categories, the person paying the freight should pay the service tax, even if not falling under those categories. Therefore, the argument of the applicant was deemed incorrect, and they were requested to make predeposit. The Tribunal, considering the small amount involved in the case and not wanting to differ from an earlier stay order, granted a waiver of predeposit of dues arising from the impugned order and stayed its collection during the pendency of the appeal. This decision was made to uphold consistency with previous orders and ensure fairness in the proceedings.
|
