9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1129 - AT - Service TaxGTA Services - Benefit of N/N. 34/2004 -ST dated 3.12.2004 - transports where, for the whole transport carriage, the freight paid exceeds ₹ 750/- but does not exceeds ₹ 1500/- - Held that - In the instant case the individual consignment transported in a goods carriage exclusively for transportation of goods consigned to the appellant had freight amount exceeding ₹ 750/- thereby attracting the provisions of clause (ii) of the said Notification Clause (i) will apply only where the gross amount charged on consignments transported in a goods carriage does not exceed ₹ 1500/- - admittedly, there is no multiple consignments. A similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the matter of Bellary Iron & Ores Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE Belgaum 2009 (12) TMI 150 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , wherein this Tribunal while interpreting the N/N. 34/2004 has held that Where the goods carriage transports several consignments, the exemption will be available if the aggregate freight charged for the trip does not exceed ₹ 1500/-. Therefore, where an assessee incurred freight upto ₹ 1500/- per consignment the assessee is not eligible for exemption. Benefit of notification not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 34/2004 -ST dated 3.12.2004 regarding exemption for service tax on transport of goods by road. 2. Applicability of exemption under the notification based on the gross amount charged on consignments transported in a goods carriage. 3. Dispute over the interpretation of clauses (i) and (ii) of the notification. 4. Analysis of the case law precedent in Bellary Iron & Ores Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Belgaum and CCE Jaipur-II v. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals. Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 34/2004 -ST dated 3.12.2004 The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the demand for service tax on transport of goods by a Company engaged in manufacturing. The dispute centered around the interpretation of Notification No. 34/2004 -ST dated 3.12.2004, which exempts service tax provided by a goods transport agency (GTA) to a customer in relation to transport of goods by road carriage. The appellant contended that the exemption should apply if the gross amount charged on consignments transported in a goods carriage does not exceed specific limits. Issue 2: Applicability of exemption under the notification The appellant argued that to avail the exemption under the notification, the freight charges for consignments should not exceed certain limits, as specified in the notification. The appellant emphasized that the exemption should be granted if the gross amount charged on consignments does not exceed the prescribed limits, regardless of the number of consignees involved. The Department, however, contended that the exemption is not available if the freight charged exceeds a certain amount, contrary to the appellant's interpretation. Issue 3: Dispute over interpretation of clauses (i) and (ii) of the notification The Tribunal analyzed the language of the notification and clarified that clause (i) applies to the gross amount charged on multiple consignments, while clause (ii) pertains to the gross amount charged on an individual consignment. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption under clause (i) is not with reference to consignees but with reference to consignments. Therefore, as long as the gross amount charged on consignments does not exceed a specified limit, the exemption would apply for the entire consignment, irrespective of the number of consignees. Issue 4: Analysis of case law precedent The Tribunal referred to the decision in Bellary Iron & Ores Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Belgaum and CCE Jaipur-II v. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals to support its interpretation of the notification. The Tribunal upheld the view that the exemption under the notification is admissible to goods transported as a single consignment for which the freight charged is within the specified limit. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that where a goods carriage transports several consignments, the exemption will be available if the aggregate freight charged for the trip does not exceed a certain limit. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appellant's appeal based on the interpretation of Notification No. 34/2004 -ST and relevant case law precedents.
|
