9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 321 - AT - Service TaxLiability to pay service tax - amount of transportation cost paid to the transporters and later recovered from the cane growers - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of M/S SHREENATH MHASKOBA SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III 2016 (12) TMI 732 - CESTAT MUMBAI . In the said case also, transportation cost has been borne by the farmers which was initially paid by the manufacturer of sugar and later deducted from the price of the sugarcane from the farmers. In the present case also, the transportation cost has been borne by the farmers and therefore, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to discharge service tax. Hence, there are no reason to deviate from the above said decision of the Tribunal. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on transportation costs recovered from cane growers. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an order demanding service tax under GTA service for paying freight charges to transporters for transporting sugarcane. The appellant procured sugarcane from farmers at an ex-factory price, with farmers bearing the transportation cost. The Department alleged the appellant, as a consignee, is liable to pay service tax. The issue was whether the appellant should pay service tax on transportation costs recovered from cane growers. The appellant argued that the transportation charges were paid by individual farmers and not by them. The Tribunal analyzed bills and found that the appellant deducted transportation costs from payments to farmers. It was held that the appellant need not pay service tax on transportation charges as they did not bear or pay those charges. The Tribunal referred to the Reverse Charges Mechanism and ruled that the appellant was not liable to pay tax on deducted amounts. The Tribunal also noted previous decisions supporting the appellant's position. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant contended that the show-cause notice issued for recovery of amounts from a specific period was time-barred and that the penalty imposed was unwarranted. The learned advocate argued that the notice was issued beyond the limitation period and that no facts were suppressed from the Department. The AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner(Appeals). The Tribunal considered both arguments and found that the transportation costs were borne by farmers, absolving the appellant of service tax liability. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's position, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per law. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that they were not required to pay service tax on transportation costs recovered from cane growers. The decision was based on the fact that the transportation charges were borne by farmers and not by the appellant. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments and the Reverse Charges Mechanism to support its decision. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant in accordance with the law.
|
