2016 (4) TMI 329 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax on delivery of RMC at sit - Whether adjudicating authority was correct in dropping the proceeding initiated by show-cause notice - Manufacture and supply of RMC - Respondent charged separate amounts as pumping charges for pumping RMC into desired place - Held that - the issue is no more res integra as the Tribunal in the case of GMK Concrete Mixing Pvt. Ltd vs CST 2011 (11) TMI 425 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI in an identical issue held against the Revenue and set aside the demand. Revenue aggrieved by such an order preferred an appeal before the Hon ble Apex Court and same was dismissed by Hon ble Apex Court as reported in 2015 (1) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT . Therefore by following the same the adjudicating authority was correct in dropping the proceeding initiated by show-cause notice. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of dropping the proceeding initiated by show-cause notice.
2. Inclusion of pumping charges in the value for Service Tax under "transport of goods other than water through pipeline or other conduit."

Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenges the dropping of proceedings initiated by a show-cause notice. The issue revolves around whether the adjudicating authority was correct in its decision. The respondent, a manufacturer of Ready Mix Concrete (RMC), supplies RMC by a truck that pumps the RMC into the desired place upon reaching the site, charging separate amounts as pumping charges. The Revenue contends that these charges should be included in the value for Service Tax under the category of "transport of goods other than water through pipeline or other conduit."

2. The Tribunal considered the precedent set by a previous case involving GMK Concrete Mixing Pvt. Ltd., where a similar issue was addressed. In that case, the Tribunal ruled against the Revenue and dismissed the demand. Subsequently, the Revenue appealed to the Hon'ble Apex Court, which also dismissed the appeal. Based on this legal precedent and the judicial pronouncement, the Tribunal in the current case held that the impugned order is sustainable. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was deemed devoid of merits and rejected.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both sides, the legal precedent considered, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.