9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t satisfy the statutory requirement of central registration as per Rule 4. In the case GTA service, the levy of service tax had been shifted from the service provider to the service recipient who is liable to pay freight as cosigner or consignee of the goods. This applies to specified categories of service recipient. The appellant paid identified amount of freight for the transportation of goods. M/s Lee actually paid service freight charges in terms of the sub-contract executed by them. M/s Essemm dealt with the transportation of goods. Freight paid to the transporter is by M/s Lee as agent of the appellant, who reimbursed the same. The appellant is one of the categories specified for tax liability on reverse-charge basis. The freight i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for clearance and transportation of the impugned equipments to the site. The appellant agreed to pay ₹ 927/- PMT towards handling of material including port clearance. Out of this amount, ₹ 770/- PMT was towards transportation of material from port to the project site. M/s Lee availed the services of one M/s Essem Logistics, who actually transported the goods and issued consignment note. The goods were imported and the bill of entry filed by M/s NTPC. The consignment was to be delivered to M/s NTPC in the required site. 2. On the above factual background, the Revenue proceeded to demand and recover Service Tax from the appellant for the taxable service of transport of goods by road in terms of Section 65 (50b) read with S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original order. Thus, the appeal came back to the Tribunal for afresh decision mainly on the jurisdiction contested by the appellant. 4. The ld Counsel for the appellant submitted that the SCN issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur to the Project Office of the appellant at Bilaspur is without jurisdiction. The appellant was registered with the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-II. Once the appellant was registered for Service Tax Department at Hyderabad, the Commissioner at Raipur had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the appellant. Accordingly, he pleaded that the issue of SCN and the impugned order is without jurisdiction. He relied on certain decided cases in support of his contention. 5. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d above all there is no registration for goods transport agency for service tax purposes by the appellant. 7. On merits of the case, he reiterated the findings recorded by the original authority. He further stated that the final order dated 02.03.2017 of Tribunal examined the merits and decided against the appellant. Though the Hon ble High Court set-aside the said order, the question framed by the High Court is only with reference to absence of finding by the Tribunal regarding territorial jurisdiction as contested by the appellant. The said question was to be decided by the Tribunal. If the same is held in favour of Revenue then on merit, the order on merit, as already examined, will apply as there is nothing new to be contested or e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctivities is bifurcated into regional concept based on volume of business and some regional offices controlled business activities being carried-out in more than one State. It was further informed that the Hyderabad Regional Officer controls its ongoing project activities in Andhra Pradesh and Chhatisgarh. The billing is carried-out from the said office. Apart from these two documents, the appellant did not produce any other evidence to show that they were centrally registered for all services provided/received by them which will include the present disputed services. In fact, there is no evidence at all on record to state that the appellants did apply and received centralized registration in terms of Rule 4(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted, the appellant did not register themselves under the category of goods transport service, even in Hyderabad. 10. We have also examined the case laws relied upon by the appellant. In M/s Nokia (I) Pvt Limited-2006, 1 STR 233 (Tri. Del), the Tribunal was examining the jurisdiction of officers in Delhi to proceed against the assessee, who had centrealized billing and entered into an agreement in their Delhi office. Similar is the case in M/s Basti Sugar Mills Co. Limited-2015 TIOL 2067 Cestat Delhi. In M/s Inox Leisure Limited-2016 TIOL 239 Cestat Bombay, the question examined was regarding the power of Commissioner of Service Tax, Bombay, to decide cases arising outside his jurisdiction. The case laws relied upon by appellant do not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
