9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture (1) Plant location Village Pandripani, Gidam Road Jagdalpur (2) Land area 7.20 acres Factory Pandripani, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur (3) Power connected load 400 KVA (4) Production capacity 6,00,000 ton per annum (5) Facilities Modern crushing unit with state of the Art cone crusher computerized 100 MT weigh bridge, office building, residential colony and Guest House (C) Process From bunker through reciprocating Feeders Lump cone will be crushed in Primary Jaw Crushers up to size of 75 mm and Secondary Crushers will then down size from 75 mm to (-) 018 mm size. Crushed ore will be transported by conveyor belt to the Vibratory Screen. The Vibratory Screen will segregate the crushed iron ore into various sizes. The iron ore will be fed into concrete storage silos from where automatic Extraction System is installed to load into trucks directly. (D) Distances Bailadila to Jagdalpur/Rail 170 Km Jagdalpur to our Crushing Unit/Road 10 Km Jagdalpur to Raipur/Road 213 Km (E) Commercial Offer We propose to do the crushing job as Total packaged Deal which will also take care of:- &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellants paid service tax on the amounts recovered by invoices in CRC series and LIA series. But they did not pay service tax on the amounts recovered through invoices in TRC series and on amounts recovered through Debit Notes in CRC series. (There is a claim that tax has been paid on amounts recovered through Debit notes). TRC series invoices were issued for recovering charges paid to their sub-contractors for unloading the goods at Jagdalpur Railway yard, loading into trucks and transportation of the goods from the railways yard at Jagdalpur to their plant at Pandripani. They took credit of such tax paid for the purpose of paying service tax on the services rendered by them to their clients under the head for Business Auxiliary service. 4. Revenue was of the view that the amounts recovered from their clients for unloading, loading and transportation of goods to the plant of the Appellants should form part of the value of service rendered by them to their clients as these amounts were recovered by them from their clients through TRC series of invoices and they should have paid service tax for the above service. On this count an amount of Rs. 44,03,673/- was found to be not pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so refund is in effect being granted. The real issue in this case is the valuation of the service and whether amounts claimed as reimbursement will form part of the value of service. In this matter the decision of the larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of Sri. Bhagavathy Traders v. CCE [2011] 33 STT 1/13 taxmann.com 83 (Bang. - CESTAT) (LB)/2011 (24) STR 290 (Tri. - LB) is relevant and the decision goes against the arguments of the Appellants. The appellants have quoted about 7 decisions to argue that the service rendered by the contractors providing service to them was not cargo handling services. Since we are deciding this issue in favour of the appellants, for reasons recorded in later paragraph, there is no need to examine these decisions at length. 10. The appellants point out that the goods were sent to their clients after crushing, the freight was paid by the clients and the appellants have no liability on that part of the service. 11. The Ld. A. R. on the other hand submits that the appellants are recovering the cost of the services rendered by them from their clients through these TRC series invoice and from this fact and from the terms of contract it is very clear tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue's stand that the service can be classified as cargo handling service but the tax liability will be on the recipient of the service when such provision is applicable only to transportation of goods. 17. After considering the totality of the facts we are of the view that the contract by the appellant with their customers is for doing crushing and grading of iron ore and also for doing activities like unloading, loading and transportation necessary for this purpose. The transportation activity was done by others and paid by the Appellant along with service tax payable for transportation of goods. The appellants billed the contracted amount separately as processing charges and transportation charges claiming it to be reimbursement of transportation charges when actually what was charged were not actuals for transportation. So it is very obvious that the amounts billed by them form part of the value of taxable service rendered by them and they should have paid tax on the full value under the head applicable for crushing and grading. However the Revenue's argument that the services rendered by the sub-contractors were not input services is not maintainable once the above decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
