2018 (11) TMI 1470 - AT - Service Tax

GTA Services - pumping charges/unloading charges charged and collected from their customers - Liability of Service tax - Held that - The issue involved is no more res integra as the same has been considered and laid to rest by this very Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. RMC Readymix (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (8) TMI 1308 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , where it was held that the activity of pumping the RMC does not fall under the said category of services. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activity of pumping Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) through conduit pipes constitutes a taxable service under "transport of goods other than water through pipeline or through other conduit" for service tax liability.
2. Whether the assessee is liable to pay service tax on pumping charges collected from customers for transporting RMC.

Analysis:
1. The investigation revealed that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture and supply of RMC, which was transported to customers' sites through transit mixer vehicles. The pumping of RMC through conduit pipes was considered as falling under the taxable service category of "transport of goods other than water through pipeline or through other conduit," attracting service tax liability under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Revenue alleged that the assessee had not discharged their service tax liability on pumping charges collected from customers. The total pumping charges collected amounted to ?3,75,33,893, with a service tax liability of ?38,50,478.

2. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing a service tax demand, education cess, interest, and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand but dropped the penalty under Section 76. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who allowed the appeal, stating that pumping RMC at construction sites did not attract service tax under the specified category. The Revenue appealed to the forum, arguing that pumping RMC for transportation through conduit pipes should be considered a taxable service.

3. During the hearing, the Revenue contended that as long as pumping was done to transport goods through a pipeline and charges were collected separately, it fell under the taxable service of "Transportation of goods through pipeline." However, the respondent's advocate cited a previous ruling by the CESTAT bench in a similar case, where it was held that such activity did not fall within the specified service category. The bench upheld the previous ruling, stating that the activity of pumping RMC did not attract service tax liability under the relevant category. The Revenue failed to provide any contrary judgments, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal provisions, and the ultimate decision reached by the tribunal based on precedent and interpretation of the law.