9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve only raised invoices for transportation of cement clinkers as per the contract which did not satisfy the requirement of the consignment note and the responsibility cast for issuing the consignment note is not met to hold that Goods Transport Agency Services are rendered. The Appellant in respect of service in question are not liable to service tax - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Vs CCE, Lucknow - 2014-34-STR-850-TRI-Del. b. Birla Ready Mix Vs CCE, Noida, 2013 (30) STR 99 (Tri-Del) c. Western Coal Field Ltd. Vs CCE, Nagpur - 2015-TIOL-1289-CESTAT-MUM d. South eastern Coal Field Ltd. Vs CCE, Raipur - 2014-TIOL-1554-CESTAT-Del. e. Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana - 2016-41-STR-438-Tri-Mum f. Lakshminarayan Mining Co. Vs CCE Banglore - 2009-16-STR-691-Tri-Bang He further submits that the service was received by individual truck owners not covered by Goods Transport Agency. This has been held in following judgments:- a. Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co Ltd. Vs CCE, Lucknow-2014-34-STR-850-Tri-Del b. Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana - 2016-41-STR-438-Tri-Mum c. Bellary Iron Vs CCE, Belgaum, 2010-TIOL-704-CESTAT- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the records. 6.1 We find that the first appellate authority as well as the adjudicating authority have erred in coming to a conclusion that in this case the service tax liability arises. 6.2 It is seen from the records that the movement of cement clinkers from jetty to the manufacturing premises of the appellant is done by the trucks of two transport companies. It is also undisputed that cement clinkers is received at the jetty from the factories of the appellant. We find from the records that nowhere it is mentioned that these two transport companies issued consignment note either individually or jointly for the movement of the cement clinkers from jetty to the manufacturing premises of the appellant. It is noticed that the activity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnee or the goods transport agency.] 6.3 It can be seen from the above reproduced Explanation to the Rule, consignment note should have specific particulars, the provisions of Section 65(50b) talks about the issuance of the consignment note. The interpretation placed by the lower authorities that any document by whatever name, needs to be considered as consignment note is misplaced as in this case the transporting companies have only raised invoices for transportation of cement clinkers as per the contract which did not satisfy the requirement of the consignment note and the responsibility cast for issuing the consignment note is not met to hold that Goods Transport Agency Services are rendered. 6.4 We find that an identical issue came up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he customer. In term of Explanation to Rule 4B, Consignment Note means - a document issued by Goods Transport Agency against the receipt of goods for the purpose of its transport by road in a goods carriage, which is serially numbered and contains the name of consignor and consignee, registration number of the goods carriage in which goods are transported, details of goods transported, details of the place of origin and destination, person liable for paying Service Tax whether consignor, consignee or Goods Transport Agency. Thus mere transportation of the goods in a Motor Vehicle is not the service provided by a Goods Transport Agency. A Goods Transport Agency in terms of its definition under Section 65(50b) provides service in relation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e service of transportation of sugarcane provided by the transporters would not be covered by Section 65(105)(zzp). In view of this we hold that there will be no Service Tax liability on the appellant sugarcane mills, as they have not received the service from a Goods Transport Agency. In view of this the impugned orders are not sustainable and the same are set aside. The appeals filed by M/s. Nandganj and M/s. Bajpur are allowed. As regards the Revenues appeal, since it has been held that there is no Service Tax liability of the Appellants, there would be no merit in it and the same is dismissed." 6.5 The above said ratio would squarely covers the issue in the case in hand and accordingly we hold that the impugned order is unsustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
