2019 (11) TMI 493 - AT - Service Tax

GTA Service - services of tempo for transporting their outward material from the factory - sub-clause 21(b) of notification no. 25/2012 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - There is no finding of the lower authorities that consignment note were being issued by the said individual tempo driver in which case the services cannot be held to be GTA service so as to make the appellant liable to service tax. Further, in terms of the notification, if the charges are not more than ₹ 1500/- per trip the same are exempted in terms of notification. The statement attached indicate that the said charges were less than ₹ 1500 per trip. There is also favour with the appellant s contention that the demand, which stands raised by invoking extended period is to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in presenting the appeal.
2. Classification of services availed by the appellant for transportation.
3. Imposition of service tax and penalties under the reverse charge mechanism.
4. Exemption of transportation charges under notification no. 25/2012.
5. Assailing the demand on the point of limitation.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of condonation of delay in presenting the appeal. The appellant, a manufacturer, faced a demand for service tax along with penalties due to a delay in depositing the mandatory pre-deposit with the Central Excise authorities. The Member (Judicial) considered the appellant's status as a retired person and manufacturer, condoning the delay of 10 months and proceeding to decide the appeal due to a short issue involved.

2. The issue of classification of services availed by the appellant for transportation is discussed in the judgment. The appellant, a manufacturer of chemicals, utilized tempo services for transporting outward material from the factory. The authorities treated this use of tempo as receipt of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service, leading to the initiation of proceedings and imposition of service tax and penalties.

3. The judgment delves into the imposition of service tax and penalties under the reverse charge mechanism. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax and penalties, which was partially upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the amount. The appellant contested this, arguing that the services availed did not fall under GTA and were exempted from service tax under specific notification provisions.

4. The exemption of transportation charges under notification no. 25/2012 is highlighted in the judgment. The appellant contended that the charges paid to the tempo driver were below the threshold specified in the notification, making them exempt from service tax. The Member (Judicial) found merit in this argument, noting that the charges were indeed below the specified limit per trip.

5. Lastly, the judgment addresses the issue of assailing the demand on the point of limitation. The appellant raised concerns about the demand being raised invoking an extended period, which the Member (Judicial) found necessary to set aside. The absence of consignment notes being issued by the tempo driver further supported the appellant's contention that the services did not fall under GTA, relieving them from the service tax liability.

In conclusion, the judgment sets aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The application for condonation of delay is also disposed of, providing a comprehensive resolution to the issues raised in the case.

← Previous Next →