2009 (5) TMI 108 - AT - Service Tax

Recipient of GTA service - The appellants are actually a mining company. - The ore extracted from the pits is to be transported within mining area for further processing. For this purpose the appellants engaged trucks for transportation. Revenue proceeded against the appellant on the ground that they are the recipients of the service of GTA. Tribunal in similar case have held that transportation of coal within the mining area is not subjected to service tax stay granted

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax for engaging trucks for transportation within the mining area.
2. Interpretation of the Finance Minister's budget speech regarding the intention of the Government on levying service tax.
3. Applicability of a previous decision by the Kolkata Bench on the transportation of goods within a mining area to the current case.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, a mining company engaged in extracting Manganese and Iron Ore, were required to pre-deposit a substantial amount as service tax, penalties, and interest for the period from 1-1-2005 to 30-9-2007. The dispute arose from the revenue's claim that the appellants, by engaging trucks for transportation within the mining area, were recipients of the services of Goods Transport Agency (GTA). The appellants argued that no service was involved as it was self-service since the consignor and consignee were the same. They also referenced a previous stay order by the Bench and the Finance Minister's budget speech indicating that the Government's intention was not to levy service tax on truck owners and operators but only on transport booking agents. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' case and granted a full waiver of the dues until the appeal's disposal, scheduling the matter for final disposal on a specified date.

2. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Jt. CDR) attempted to justify the revenue's position by distinguishing a decision by the Kolkata Bench in a similar case involving the transportation of coal within a mining area. The Kolkata Bench had ruled that such transportation was not subject to service tax during the relevant period. However, the Jt. CDR argued that this decision did not apply in the current case as it pertained to cargo handling services and did not specifically address whether the service constituted a GTA. The Tribunal concurred that the levy was primarily on GTA services and acknowledged the appellants' prima facie merit, leading to the decision to waive the dues until the appeal's final disposal.

3. The Tribunal's analysis considered the Kolkata Bench's decision on the transportation of coal within a mining area and its relevance to the current case. While the Jt. CDR attempted to distinguish the applicability of that decision, the Tribunal focused on the nature of the service being primarily GTA-related. By referencing the Kolkata Bench's ruling and the specific nature of the service being taxed, the Tribunal supported the appellants' argument that no service tax should be levied in their case, ultimately leading to the waiver of the dues until the appeal's resolution.