2017 (11) TMI 401 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of N/N. 34/2004-S.T. - GTA services - denial of exemption on the ground that the freight payable by the appellants are intentionally split-up into small consignment in order to show that they did not exceed ₹ 750/- per consignment - Held that - the proceedings by the lower authorities are mainly based on allegations and presumptions, without any categorical evidence - Based on the illustrative documents submitted by the appellant, we find no evidence of deliberate split-up or manipulation, to claim the benefit of the said Notification. In order to sustain such allegation, the Revenue should have brought out clear evidence, which is lacking in the present proceedings - benefit of notification allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of exemption under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T. to the appellants based on intentional splitting of freight charges.
- Allegations of deliberate split-up consignments by the appellants to avail tax benefit.
- Lack of categorical evidence to support the allegations made by the Revenue.
- Legal sustainability of the impugned orders.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dealt with two appeals having identical facts regarding the denial of exemption under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T. to the appellants, who were engaged in processing grey fabric and were recipients of services under the category of Goods Transport Agency, making them liable to pay Service Tax on inward transport of goods. The dispute centered around the allegation that the appellants intentionally split-up the freight charges to fall within the exemption limit specified in the notification.

The appellants argued that they received small consignments from various suppliers, and the consignment notes did not contain details like transport vehicle number, as they were unaware of the consolidation process by the transporter. They maintained that even before the introduction of Service Tax on GTA services, they followed the same practice. The appellants presented illustrative consignment notes and freight receipts to support their claim that there was no deliberate manipulation to claim the tax benefit.

The Revenue, however, contended that the appellants were deliberately splitting up consignments to avail the tax exemption, pointing to instances where bills issued by the transport company showed the same consignee and consigner. The lower authorities based their decisions on allegations and presumptions without concrete evidence. The Tribunal noted that there was a lack of clear evidence to support the Revenue's allegations of deliberate split-up or manipulation by the appellants.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the impugned orders were not legally sustainable as they were mainly based on presumptions without substantial evidence. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals. The judgment emphasized the importance of concrete evidence to support allegations in tax matters and highlighted the need for a factual basis for denying exemptions rather than relying on presumptions.