2017 (11) TMI 344 - AT - Service Tax

GTA service - N/N. 34/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 - Held that - the exemption is only available on first voucher and not on subsequent vouchers - In the instant case, the lower authorities have already disallowed the claim on the vouchers which are in numbers but each below ₹ 1500/-. Thus the order appears reasonable as per the Golden Rule of Interpretation for the reason that in the said N/N. 30/2004 the word a transaction is already mentioned. Penalty u/s 76 - Held that - In the instant case, the Appellate authority has already cancelled the another penalty. When it is so, then we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned which is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 34/2004-S.T. regarding service tax exemption.
2. Applicability of service tax on multiple transactions exceeding the exemption limit.
3. Validity of penalty cancellation under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of service tax on transportation of goods by the appellant, a manufacturer of portable spirit, IMFL, and CL, during the period from January 2005 to March 2009. The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004, which exempted service tax if the gross amount charged on consignments transported in a goods carriage did not exceed rupees one thousand five hundred. The appellant contended that as each voucher was less than the exemption limit, no service tax should apply. However, the Revenue argued that the exemption applied to a single transaction, and as the appellant had multiple transactions with consolidated payments exceeding the limit, the exemption did not apply to subsequent vouchers. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, stating that the exemption was only available for the first voucher and not subsequent ones when transactions were consolidated, upholding the impugned order based on the Golden Rule of Interpretation and the wording of the notification.

2. The Tribunal further addressed the issue of penalty cancellation under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant had challenged the cancellation of penalty by the Appellate authority. The Tribunal noted that after May 2008, only one penalty was sustainable, and the Appellate authority had already cancelled one penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order sustaining the penalty cancellation, along with the reasons provided in the order.

3. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed both cross appeals, upholding the impugned order that disallowed the service tax exemption on subsequent vouchers due to consolidated transactions exceeding the exemption limit and sustaining the penalty cancellation under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision was based on the interpretation of the notification and the applicable penalty provisions, leading to the dismissal of both appeals.