2014 (5) TMI 34 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - GTA Service - Held that - prima facie, it appears that the impugned activity did not constitute service of GTA. Therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit for admission of the appeal and there shall be stay on collection of its dues during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Determination of liability for service tax on transportation services provided by a manufacturer of carbon-di-oxide gas using hired vehicles.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Service Tax Liability: The case revolves around the liability of the applicant, a manufacturer of carbon-di-oxide gas, for service tax on transportation services provided using hired vehicles. The applicant contended that they were not providing services as a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) since they transported the goods themselves without issuing consignment notes. The Revenue argued that the applicant fell under the purview of GTA as they used vehicle owners' services for transportation and should have issued consignment notes.

2. Legal Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant had already paid service tax under the GTA category and should not be liable for additional tax. They raised the legal plea that the tax was not payable ab initio, emphasizing that they disputed the liability from the initial stage of the show-cause notice. The counsel cited a Tribunal decision in the case of Birla Ready Mix Vs. CCE, Noida to support their argument for waiver of pre-deposit of dues for appeal admission.

3. Revenue's Position: The Revenue contended that the applicant's use of vehicle owners' services for transportation fell within the GTA taxing entry, and the failure to issue consignment notes did not absolve them of liability. The Revenue relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of Bharathi Soap Works Vs. CCE, Guntur to support their argument.

4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal, comprising a Division Bench, noted that the impugned activity did not align with the service of GTA. They observed that the Revenue's reliance on a Single Member Bench decision did not sufficiently establish the applicant's liability under the GTA category. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement for appeal admission and granted a stay on the collection of dues during the appeal's pendency.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the applicant by acknowledging that the services provided did not fall under the GTA category, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit for appeal admission and a stay on the collection of dues. The legal arguments presented by both parties and the relevant case laws played a crucial role in determining the liability for service tax on the transportation services provided by the applicant.