9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE Jaipur [2016 (8) TMI 946 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the contract of appellant with the Nepalese suppliers is for supply of yarn and not for providing any particular service. Transport of goods is an activity incidental to the supply of goods for which Nepalese suppliers has engaged transporters. Nepalese suppliers had not 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to duty in terms of section 78 of the Finance Act 1994. In turn penalties were imposed under section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. The said order was upheld by Commissioner (A). Hence the present appeal. 4. After hearing both the sides we find that numbers of identical orders were passed in respect of other appellants similarly situate. Their appeals before the Tribunal were disposed of vide Final order number 818-832/2010-SM(BR) dated 24.06.2010. Their appeals were allowed by observing as under: However, on going through the records, I find that there is no evidence 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 Nepales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1994 read with Rule 2(1)(d)(v), the question which has to be answered is as to who had engaged the transporter and who was liable to pay freight to the transporter. In this group of cases, there is no evidence that it is the appellants who had engaged the transporter either directly or through the Nepalese suppliers and therefore they cannot be treated as recipients of GTA services. In these cases, the appellants imported yarn from the Nepalese suppliers and their contract with the Nepalese suppliers is the contract for supply of the goods i.e. yarn and not any particular 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 inciden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
