2008 (9) TMI 148 - AT - Service Tax

Appellants transport the goods in their own vehicle to the buyer - revenue proceeded on the ground that they are providing GTA services - Therefore, they are liable to discharge the service tax on the freight charges collected in the present case, the buyer is a person who actually pays the freight. It is very clear in terms of Rule 2 (1) (d) (v) that the liability to pay service tax is cast on the person who pays the freight - therefore, the appellant has no liability to pay the service tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of liability to pay service tax for transportation charges collected by manufacturers of Oxygen and Nitrogen.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, challenging the demand of service tax on transportation charges collected by the appellants, who are manufacturers of Oxygen and Nitrogen. The appellants transport the cylinders to buyers in their own vehicles and collect transportation charges. The Revenue claimed that they are providing services of a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) and hence liable to pay service tax. The Original Authority confirmed the demand of service tax, along with interest and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and remanded the matter to determine the liability of the appellants under specific provisions of the Finance Act.

The learned Advocate argued that the appellants, being the owners of the vehicles, cannot be considered as a GTA providing services to themselves. Referring to relevant Circulars and Notifications, it was contended that the legislative intent is to tax services provided by a GTA to customers, not the owners. The Union Minister's speech highlighted the services intended to be taxed, excluding truck owners or operators. Rule 2 (1) (d) (v) of the Service Tax Rules was cited to emphasize that liability to pay service tax is on the person who pays the freight.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the appellants transport goods in their vehicles to the buyer, who actually pays the freight. As per Rule 2 (1) (d) (v), the liability to pay service tax rests with the person paying the freight, in this case, the buyer. Therefore, the appellants, as the consignors of goods, have no obligation to pay service tax. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly set aside the original order but deemed the remand unnecessary. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellants from the service tax liability.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of liability for service tax on transportation charges collected by manufacturers acting as consignors of goods, emphasizing the importance of the person actually paying the freight in determining the tax liability. The Tribunal's decision aligns with the legislative intent and relevant legal provisions, providing a clear understanding of the tax obligations in such scenarios.