2014 (7) TMI 407 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - GTA Services - Exemption under Notification No. 18/09 - assessee submitted that services have been received from individual transporters and the transportation charges per consignment per trip does not exceed ₹ 750/- further it is submitted that where the amount exceeds ₹ 750/-, such transportation related to exports and the appellant in any case was eligible for refund in terms of Notification No. 18/09. - Held that - Appellant would be eligible for the exemption claimed by them and apparently there seems to be something wrong with the quantification of demand, we find that this is a case where it cannot be said that appellant has made out a prima facie case entirely in their favour. - stay granted partly - on the condition of deposit the amount to be pre-deposited, matter remanded back for re-adjudication.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Duty demand on GTA services from the appellants as service receiver.

Analysis:
In the judgment delivered by Shri B.S.V.Murthy, the issue at hand involved duty demand on GTA services from the appellants as service receivers. The appellant's Chartered Accountant argued that the transportation charges per consignment per trip did not exceed a certain amount and that they were eligible for a refund in case of transportation related to exports. On the other hand, the A.R. for the respondent contended that the appellants failed to provide evidence to support their claims, leading to the confirmation of demands.

Regarding the calculation of tax liability, the appellant's counsel highlighted that the transportation charges in the income portion were actually reimbursements made by the service receivers, thus should not be subject to service tax. Additionally, the appellant's lack of cooperation in providing evidence was raised by the A.R. as a point against them. The Tribunal acknowledged the potential eligibility of the appellant for the claimed exemption and noted discrepancies in the demand quantification. However, due to the appellant's past lack of cooperation and the time elapsed since the proceedings began, the Tribunal decided to give the appellant another opportunity to present evidence before the lower authority.

To ensure the appellant's serious participation in the proceedings, the Tribunal imposed a deposit requirement. M/s Clariya Steel (Pvt) Ltd was directed to deposit a specific amount, and M/s Clariya Steel Marketing Services was also instructed to make a deposit within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply with the deposit requirement would result in the lower authority's orders taking effect. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the appellants to cooperate and present their case adequately, with a clear directive for the adjudicating authority to consider compliance and proceed with the fresh adjudication accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the duty demand on GTA services, the appellant's eligibility for exemptions, lack of evidence production, and the need for cooperation in the proceedings. The Tribunal's decision aimed to balance the interests of justice with the appellant's responsibilities, emphasizing the importance of compliance and active participation in the adjudication process.