2024 (5) TMI 868 - AT - Service Tax

Non-payment of service tax - Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services - Benefit of N/N. 32/2004/ST dated 03.12.2004 denied on the ground that the appellant failed to produce certificate from M/s. Devi Transports - HELD THAT - As per the letter furnished by M/s. Devi Transporters, they have certified that they have not availed any credit under Cenvat Credit Rules for providing the Goods Transport Service to the appellant and no deduction is claimed for cost of goods used in the rendering services. Similarly as evidenced from letter issued by M/s. Ayoob Co., they also have not availed any Cenvat Credit and no deduction was claimed for cost of goods used in rendering the services. It is found that the claim of the appellant is that once the transporter had paid some amount of service tax, it can be adjusted towards the tax liability of the appellant. The issue was considered by the Tribunal in the matter NAVYUG ALLOYS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE C, VADODARA-II 2008 (8) TMI 100 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD , where on similar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that once tax is already paid on the service, it is not open to the department to confirm the same against the appellant. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the availing of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services, non-payment of service tax, non-registration, and non-filing of returns under the Finance Act, 1994.

Availing of GTA Services:
The appellant, a public sector undertaking, availed GTA services from two transporters and paid the freight amount. The appellant was alleged to have failed to pay service tax on the amount and faced a Show Cause Notice. The adjudicating authority confirmed a differential amount of service tax along with interest. The appellant contended that the demand against transportation by the transporters was unsustainable and claimed entitlement under Notification No.32/2004/ST. The appellant argued that the demand for service provided by another transporter amounted to double taxation and was unsustainable. The appellant cited relevant case law and notifications to support their case.

Liability to Pay Service Tax:
The appellant argued that the service tax paid by the transporters should be adjusted against their tax liability. The Tribunal's decision in Navyug Alloys Pvt. Ltd. case was referenced, where it was held that once tax is paid on the service, the department cannot confirm the same against the appellant. The Tribunal also referred to the case of M/s. Agniplast Pvt. Ltd. where it was emphasized that the Service Tax liability had been discharged by the transporters, and the burden of proof was on the Revenue to verify the authenticity of the certificates issued by the transporters.

Decision:
After considering the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found that the appellant's claim was valid based on the certificates provided by the transporters. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, citing previous decisions and Circulars from the CBEC. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with the law.

(Order Pronounced in Open court on 02.05.2024)