2017 (11) TMI 397

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e circumstances, it appears to be a mechanism has been devised to mislead the Service Tax authorities and to avoid payment of Service Tax. So long as liability to pay transporter is of appellant, the physical payment through dealers for connivance or for practical reasons, does not change the liability to tax - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/87064/2013-Mum - Final Order No. A/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uld arise only in respect of person who physically pays the transporter. He pointed out that in case where they paid the transporters, they are discharging the Service Tax liability. However, in case where the dealers, who are the consignees of their goods, are paying the freight to the transporter, they are liable to pay tax. He pointed out that they have entered into an agreement with the transp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ransportation is covered by Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. He pointed out that in this case the agreement with the transporter is entered into by the appellants. The appellant reimbursed the dealer and there is a clear understanding in this regard. He pointed out that all the amounts whether directly paid by the appellants to the transporter, or through dealers, were on the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X