2015 (2) TMI 566 - AT - Service Tax

GTA Service - Benefit of Abatement - Held that - Assessee submits that if the abatement benefit is extended, there is no liability on the appellant at all and he also agrees to deposit the interest payable within 12 weeks if the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of all the issues based on the evidences / documents / records that may be produced by them. We consider that this is to be a fair request. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 10 lakhs within twelve weeks and report compliance before the Commissioner. The Commissioner is requested to adjudicate the matter afresh after noting compliance with the above requirement and after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Applicability of service tax under the category of GTA service for transportation services.
2. Eligibility for abatement benefit in service tax.
3. Failure to produce evidence of non-availment of CENVAT credit.
4. Participation in adjudicating proceedings during a period of investigation and dispute.
5. Direction for depositing a specific amount and compliance within a specified time frame.

Issue 1: Applicability of service tax under the category of GTA service for transportation services:
The appellant, engaged in iron ore mining and export, and wind mill power generation, received services from transporters for shifting materials within the mining area and transporting ore to the port. The audit revealed that the appropriate service tax under the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service had not been discharged. The appellant argued that for shifting materials within the mining area, the amount paid per consignment was below the threshold for tax liability. Regarding transportation to the port, the appellant sought abatement benefit, claiming they did not avail CENVAT credit. The Tribunal acknowledged the challenges faced by the appellant during a period of investigation and dispute in Karnataka. They directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount and comply within a given timeframe for fresh adjudication.

Issue 2: Eligibility for abatement benefit in service tax:
The appellant contended that if the abatement benefit was extended, they would have no liability. They agreed to deposit the interest payable within 12 weeks if the matter was remanded for reconsideration based on evidence and records. The Tribunal considered this a fair request, directing the appellant to deposit a specific sum and report compliance to the Commissioner for a fresh adjudication with reasonable opportunity to present their case.

Issue 3: Failure to produce evidence of non-availment of CENVAT credit:
The appellant faced challenges in producing evidence that no CENVAT credit had been availed by the service provider, leading to the denial of abatement benefit. Despite the difficulties faced during the relevant period in Karnataka due to investigations and disputes, the appellant was directed to deposit a specified amount and comply within a set timeframe for a reevaluation of the matter.

Issue 4: Participation in adjudicating proceedings during a period of investigation and dispute:
The appellant cited problems related to mining in Karnataka during the relevant period, which hindered their participation in the adjudicating proceedings. Acknowledging the circumstances, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specific sum and comply within a stipulated time frame for a fresh adjudication by the Commissioner, ensuring reasonable opportunities for presenting their case.

Issue 5: Direction for depositing a specific amount and compliance within a specified time frame:
The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a sum of &8377; 10 lakhs within twelve weeks and report compliance to the Commissioner. The Commissioner was requested to reexamine the matter after ensuring the appellant's compliance and providing them with a fair opportunity to present their case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's directives for compliance and reevaluation.

← Previous Next →