9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the appellant, Sree Balaji Transport, Dhone for the GTA service rendered by them for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 along with interest thereon and also imposing penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 2. The facts relevant to the case, briefly, are as follows : 2.1 During the audit of the records of Sree Balaji Transport for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 it was observed that the appellant had received consideration towards freight charges amounting to Rs. 147,29,33,524/- and they had discharged Service Tax liability of only Rs. 19,31,119/- during the said period. Therefore, the appellant was asked to explain the position. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax is not on the appellant. In respect of the balance amount of consideration received, the Service Tax demand as discussed above was confirmed. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Tribunal, in a number of cases, namely, Lakshminarayana Mining Co. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore - 2010-TIOL-122-CESTAT-BANG = 2009 (16) S.T.R. 691 (T); Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur v. Kanaka Durga Agro Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. - 2009-TIOL-1123-CESTAT-BANG = 2009 (15) S.T.R. 399 (T) and KMB Granites Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem - 2010-TIOL-611-CESTAT-MAD = 2010 (19) S.T.R. 437 (T) had held that GTA service provided by individual truck owners/lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been extended to the appellant. Accordingly, he pleads that the impugned order be upheld. 5. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides. After going through the records and hearing the arguments, we notice that the issue involved lies in a narrow compass and, therefore the appeal can be disposed of at this stage itself. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of the adjudicated liabilities, we take up the appeal for consideration and disposal. 5.1 The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant being a truck owner is not liable to pay Service Tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and he has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o exclusion of individual truck owners from the purview of Service Tax levy under the law. However, vide Section 68(2) read with Rule 2(l)(d)(v) in respect of certain categories of service recipients the liability to pay Service Tax has been fastened on the recipients of service in respect of 7 categories of persons. In the case before us, the appellant has not been able to lead any evidence to the effect that in respect of the consideration received for which Service Tax demand has been confirmed, the services were rendered to persons specified in Rule 2(l)(d)(v). Therefore, the appellant cannot take the plea that they are not liable to pay Service Tax on the services rendered by them. 5.2 As regards the claim to eligibility to Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
