9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1257 - AT - Service TaxLiability to pay service tax - GTA Service - assessee appeared to have engaged the services of various contractors for transportation of limestone from the mines to their factory - HELD THAT - In the case of KMB GRANITES (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM 2010 (1) TMI 162 - CESTAT, CHENNAI this Bench had an occasion to consider an almost similar issue of liability to Service Tax on services of GTA vis- -vis Rule 2(1)(d)(v) ibid, where Bench has held that It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING CO. VERSUS COMMR. OF ST., BANGALORE 2009 (9) TMI 71 - CESTAT, BANGALORE and in the case of CCE C, GUNTUR VERSUS KANAKA DURGA AGRO OIL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ANR. 2009 (3) TMI 130 - CESTAT, BANGALORE that transport undertaken by individuals owning and operating lorry and trucks is not subject to service tax as in these cases services has not been provided by Goods Transport Agency Service. Demand set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issue involves the liability of the appellant to pay Service Tax under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) for transportation services provided by various contractors for limestone transportation from mines to the factory, as per the Show Cause Notice issued by the Revenue. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Allegation of Suppression of Facts The Revenue alleged that the appellant suppressed facts regarding freight paid to contractors for limestone transportation, leading to the Show Cause Notice. The appellant disputed this, arguing that the transportation was not covered under GTA, as the transporters were not GTA but individual truck owners, and the freight paid did not exceed the threshold for Service Tax liability. The appellant contended that the omission to include these details in their returns was not suppression of facts, supported by legal precedents. Issue 2: Confirmation of Demands by Adjudicating Authority The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands in the Show Cause Notice but dropped the penalty under Section 76. The appellant appealed against the demand, challenging the imposition of Service Tax under GTA for limestone transportation. Issue 3: Appeal and Arguments In the appeal, the appellant argued that the transportation was undertaken by individual truck owners, not covered under GTA, and no consignment notes were issued. The appellant cited various CESTAT Bench decisions supporting the non-leviability of Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism for payments to truck owners directly. Issue 4: Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal considered the arguments and referred to previous decisions where it was held that services provided by individual truck owners were not subject to Service Tax under GTA. Upholding this view, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for Service Tax on limestone transportation. The Tribunal emphasized judicial discipline in following consistent views of co-ordinate Benches and upheld the appellant's position. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant and setting aside the demand for Service Tax on limestone transportation, in line with previous decisions and legal principles.
|
