2015 (10) TMI 857 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax, interest and penalty - Goods Transport Agency Service - Held that - The issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 2014 (8) TMI 857 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and Western Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Nagpur, a decision 2015 (8) TMI 108 - CESTAT MUMBAI ; the latter decision following the earlier. This Tribunal ruled that issuance of a consignment note is non- derrogable ingredient for classification of an activity as Goods Transport Agency Service defined in Section 65 (50b) of the Act - Since there is no issuance of consignment note by transporters who provided the services to the appellant, there is no rendition of GTA service, legitimizing levy and collection of tax under that category - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Classification of service as Goods Transport Agency Service; Requirement of consignment note for GTA service; Liability of service tax on the appellant.

The judgment pertains to the classification of services received by the appellant as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Service. The appellant, a recipient of service, engaged private parties to transport coal from the pithead to the Railway siding via an intermediary journey to a crusher unit. The appellant argued that since the transporters did not issue any consignment note, the service provided did not fall under GTA service, making the appellant immune to the levy under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.

The authorities below rejected the appellant's contention, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions in similar cases, namely South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and Western Coal Fields Ltd., where it was established that the issuance of a consignment note is a crucial requirement for the classification of an activity as GTA service under Section 65(50b) of the Act.

Given that the transporters did not issue any consignment note for the services provided to the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that there was no rendition of GTA service. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order and declared the appellant not liable for the levy and collection of service tax, interest, or penalty under the category of Goods Transport Agency service. The judgment did not impose any costs on the appellant.