2015 (6) TMI 230 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - GTA Service - Held that - Goods were transported by the respondents in their own truck and in another truck, which was taken on hire by them on per day basis and for which the fuel and other expenses were borne by the respondents. Thus it is evident that they were transporting their own goods and were not engaging any goods transport agency. - respondents did not receive the goods from any person as the goods transported were their own goods. Further Goods Transport Agency as per definition in Section (50B) of Finance Act, 1994 means any person who (prior to 01.05.2006 commercial concern which) provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment notes by whatever name called. - respondents were transporting their own goods and it can be nobodys case that even providing service to oneself is taxable. CESTAT in the case of Kesoram Spun Pipes p& Foundaries (2002 (5) TMI 3 - CEGAT, KOLKATA) observed that in the present case, the appellants have received goods directly from the suppliers of the Coke, who have themselves undertaken the deliveries of the goods at the appellants door-steps, it cannot be said that the appellants received the services of any commercial agency. - No merit in Revenue appeal - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming service tax demands.
2. Interpretation of GTA service in relation to transportation of goods.
3. Application of Rule 4B of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
4. Definition of "consignment note" and its relevance to the case.
5. Taxability of self-transported goods under Goods Transport Agency.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal confirming service tax demands of Rs. 896 and Rs. 96,197 along with interest and penalties for the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2007. The primary issue was whether the transportation of goods by the respondents fell under the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service.

2. The respondents argued that they transported goods in their own truck and a rented truck, bearing expenses such as fuel, and did not issue consignment notes. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the respondents, noting that the original Show Cause Notice did not invoke Rule 7C for late fees. The Revenue contended that the respondents issued challans with consignment note details, asserting they were covered under GTA service. The judgment of Kesoram Spun Pipes & Foundries was cited, highlighting an amendment in the definition of GTA.

3. Rule 4B of Service Tax Rules, 1994, defines a "consignment note" as a document issued by a goods transport agency for transporting goods, containing specific details. In this case, the respondents did not receive goods from others but transported their own goods. The definition of Goods Transport Agency was crucial in determining tax liability.

4. The analysis emphasized that the respondents were not providing service to others but transporting their goods. The case law cited clarified that receiving services from a commercial agency is distinct from self-transportation. Even with the amendment changing "commercial concern" to "person," the taxability of self-transported goods remained unchanged.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, dismissing it based on the analysis that the respondents were transporting their goods, not engaging a Goods Transport Agency. The judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the nature of the transportation and the absence of services provided to third parties.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment comprehensively, addressing the legal interpretations and arguments presented by both parties.