9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding GTA as contained in the Act, it is apparent that the issue of consignment note, by whatever name is pre-requisite for the transaction to be covered under Goods Transport Agency - In the present case service provider has not issued the consignment note to the appellant and hence the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism and also do not fall under the category of GTA as under Section 65 (5b) of the Finance Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 52874 of 2016-DB - Final Order No. 50911 /2019 - Dated:- 19-7-2019 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Present for the appellant: Ms. Shohini, Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Act. During the disputed period i.e. 2008-09 the appellant was receiving input services from various truck owners and their payments were made, which were treated as expense in the books of account of the appellant. The Department felt that the appellant has paid this amount towards provisions of the service and as such liable to pay service tax under 65 (105)(zzp) of the Act. 4. It was submitted that the impugned Order-in-Originals dated 14/10/2014 and dated 30/07/2016 have been confirmed on the charge which were never part of the show cause notices, and therefore, was beyond the scope thereof. The impugned orders wrongly confirmed the demands on the appellant as service provider on the basis of reverse charge. There is no d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 65B(44) and Section65B(26) Section 65B(37) which was neither invoked in the show cause notice nor applicable for the disputed period i.e. 2008 and 2009. Further also the extended period is stated to be inapplicable, as the entire transaction relating to payment made to the truck owners were recorded in the books of account and returns were being file regularly and also service tax were being discharged on various services. The show cause notice did not give any reason for invocation of provisions to Section 73 (1) of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no liability towards payment of interest and also imposition of penalty is not warranted. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 6. Ld. AR on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be payable on the same under reverse charge mechanism as per Notification No. 35/2004 and Notification No. 36/2004 read with Section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended from time to time. Further, the noticee provides transportation services to M/s Soya Industries Limited. The noticee charged transportation charges for the service provided to the party and issued invoices along with the consignment note. The consignment note issued by the noticee clearly specifies the name of the consignee i.e. M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Limited who is the ultimate receiver of the service. The consignee who is the ultimate recipient of the service would be liable to pay service tax under Reverse charge mechanism. Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
