9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As the definition of “goods transport agency”, means any [person who] provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called”, any person who is providing GTA service by road, will fall under the category of GTA service - The argument of the ld.Advocate that since the service providers are mostly individual truck owners do not fall under goods transport agency is not legally sustainable and the GTA service provided by the individual truck owner is leviable to the service tax as per the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. Benefit under N/N. 34/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004 - Held that:- Appellant will fall under the category of Clause (ii) of the above Notification and thus they need to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per trip. In the view of the Revenue, the limit of ₹ 1,500/- per trip availed by them under Notification No. 34/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004 is not applicable in their case because the same is relevant only when a carriage carry more than one individual consignment and where total freight comes to less than ₹ 1,500/- per trip. A show Cause Notice, therefore, came to be issued demanding service tax of ₹ 62,12,831/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The panel provision under Section 76 and Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 had also been invoked for imposition of penalty. The show-cause notice was adjudicated and the Ld. Commissioner vide order dated 4.12.2008 confirmed the demand of service tax and imposed equal amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service tax has been calculated. The ld.Advocate has fortified his averment by taking reliance on the following decisions wherein as per the ld.Advocate s assertion in identical situations, this Tribunal has held that the service tax is not payable under GTA service : (i) Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2014 (34) S.T.R. 850 (Tri.). (ii) Candico India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2017 (4) GSTL 86 (Tri.). (iii) Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2017 (3) GSTL 169 (Tri.). (iv) Caps Prints Pvt. Ltd. CST 2013 (30) STR 426 (Tri.). On the basis of the above Judgments of this Tribunal, the Ld. Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, individual consignment means all goods transported by a goods transport agency by road in a goods carriage for a consignee . In contra distinction to this, the first clause, fixing the exemption limit to ₹ 1,500/- is not limited to the consignment to an individual but it refers to consignment relatable to more than one consignee. In other words, while clause (1) is with reference to consignments transported in a goods carriage to different consignees, Clause (2) as seen from the Explanation refers to transport of goods by a goods transport agency by road in a goods carriage for a consignee . Thus, by making two classifications, exemption Notification limits its operation based on the consignee, the charges and the consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No. 34/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004, the charges not exceeding ₹ 750/- is referable to the goods transported in the goods carriages for a consignee. Thus, by the above interpretation of Hon ble Madras High Court, the payment limit for individual consignment in the appellants case is of ₹ 750/- and therefore, they need to pay service tax on GTA service on reverse charge basis on the charges which have been made above ₹ 750/- per trip. 7. We heard both sides and have also perused the record of the appeal. The matter is no longer res-integra as per the above decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court s judgement (supra). Taking the reliance of the above judgement of the Hon ble Madras High Court, we hold that (i) As the def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
