9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d acted as the agents of the appellants for arranging transportation from Nepal border to the factory premises of the appellants. Just because the Nepalese suppliers had billed the appellants separately for transportation from Nepal border to factory premises alongwith other expenses, they do not become the agents of the appellants. In view of this, the appellants cannot be treated as recipients of GTA services in terms of Notification No. 35/04-S.T. and hence liable to pay Service tax - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/1233, 1235, 1236/2010-ST(SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 53812-53814/2016-ST(SM) - Dated:- 22-9-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Vijayan Khangal, Advocate for the Applicants Shri H.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence showing that the appellants had instructed the Nepalese suppliers to engage the transporters on their behalf. From the record of the case, it is seen that it is Nepalese suppliers who had engaged the transporters and billed the appellants for value of the goods and also the transport expenses from Nepal border to their factory premises, which were paid by the appellants. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the finding portion of the impugned order has observed that although initially freight/transportation charges had been paid by the consignors (yarn supplier situated in Nepal) on behalf of the consignees (the appellants), but because so paid transportation charges alongwith other charges stand recovered/reimbursed from the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticular service; arranging the transport of the goods within the Nepal and from Nepal border to the appellants factory premises by the Nepalese suppliers is an activity incidental to supply of the goods, for which the Nepalese suppliers had engaged transporters. There is no evidence produced to show that Nepalese suppliers had acted as the agents of the appellants for arranging transportation from Nepal border to the factory premises of the appellants. Just because the Nepalese suppliers had billed the appellants separately for transportation from Nepal border to factory premises alongwith other expenses, they do not become the agents of the appellants. In view of this, the appellants cannot be treated as recipients of GTA services in ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
