9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1481 - AT - Service TaxDemand of service tax - Goods Transport Agency service - Held that - There is no dispute as to the fact that in this case the trucks/tractors which were used for transportation of sugarcane from the farmers fields to the sugar factory were of individuals. We find that the first appellate authority as well as the adjudicating authority have nowhere relied upon any contrary evidence to come to a conclusion to state that the trucks/tractors were not of individuals. On this factual matrix we find that the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Narayana Mining (2009 (9) TMI 71 - CESTAT BANGALORE) which has been upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka as reported in 2012 (8) TMI 651 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT could have directly applicable in this case. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Service tax liability on the appellant under the category of 'Goods Transport Agency' for the period December 2007 to April 2008. Analysis: The appeal was against Order-in-Appeal No. PII/AV/117/2010 dated 27.7.2010. Despite the absence of representation from the appellant, the Tribunal decided to take up the appeal for disposal due to the narrow compass of the issue involved. The issue revolved around the service tax liability on the appellant as a consignor or consignee of sugarcane transported to the factory. The Revenue contended that the appellant was liable for service tax, while the appellant argued that the transport of sugarcane was not covered under the category of Goods Transport Agency as the contracts were with individual truck/tractor owners for the factory members' benefit. The appellant also cited the decision in the case of Laxmi Narayana Mining vs. CST 2009 (16) STR 691 to support their position. The Tribunal noted that the trucks/tractors used for transporting sugarcane were owned by individuals, and neither the first appellate authority nor the adjudicating authority had presented any contrary evidence to dispute this fact. Given this factual background, the Tribunal found that the judgment in the case of Laxmi Narayana Mining, upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, was directly applicable to the present case. Therefore, based on the facts, circumstances, and authoritative judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.
|
