9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices were availed for transporting goods from their Kodur unit to Chennai. Thereafter, the Chennai unit in turn exported the goods. While this transportation may be in relation to export of goods, there is no sufficient evidence to show that this transportation is actually for export of goods - Secondly, the exemption notification does not provide the exemption straightaway but is subject to certain conditions and available by way of refund of service tax paid on the specified services used for export of goods. Also, this exemption is available by way of refund and not at the source. This does not automatically allow the appellant to NOT pay service tax which they were liable to pay - benefit of notification cannot be extended. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant was fully aware of their liability to pay service tax on GTA services and had indeed obtained registration for the same services received in their Chennai unit but had not done so, in respect of the Kodur unit. Therefore, the appellant cannot plead ignorance about their liability to pay service tax and take registration and follow the appropriate procedures - the extended period of limitation has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used for export of goods was also not given to them. Thirdly, they contested the invocation of extended period of limitation. The first appellate authority upheld the order of the lower authority and dismissed their appeal. Hence, this appeal. 4. After hearing the learned departmental representative and perusing the records, we find that the following issues need to be decided in this case. i. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of exemption notification No. 34/2004-ST dt.03.12.2004 which exempts service tax on GTA services where the gross amount charged on consignment transported in goods carriage does not exceed ₹ 1,500/- or the gross amount charged on individual consignment transported in goods carriage does not exceed ₹ 750/-. ii. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of notification No. 41/2007-ST dt.06.10.2007 which exempts services used for export of goods from the whole of service tax leviable thereon subject to some conditions. iii. Whether the extended period of limitation has been invoked correctly in the case. 5. As far as the first issue is concerned, we find that this exemption is available only in cases where the gross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en that in the instant case the freight charges exceed ₹ 750/- per consignment as is evident from the transportation charges statement." The appellant has not put forth any evidence before us to show that transportation charges have fallen below the threshold limits which would have entitled them to the benefit of exemption notification. We therefore, find no force in the argument of the appellant that they are entitled to the benefit of this exemption notification. 8. Coming to the second issue of exemption notification No. 41/2007-ST, we find that this notification exempts services which are used for export of goods. The words used are NOT "used in relation to export of goods". In this case, GTA services were availed for transporting goods from their Kodur unit to Chennai. Thereafter, the Chennai unit in turn exported the goods. While this transportation may be in relation to export of goods, there is no sufficient evidence to show that this transportation is actually for export of goods. Secondly, we find that the exemption notification does not provide the exemption straightaway but is subject to certain conditions and available by way of refund of service tax paid on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax as applicable on the specified services provided to the exporter and used for export of the said goods, and such person shall not be eligible to claim exemption for the specified services : Provided that where the exporter of the said goods and the person liable to pay service tax under sub-section (2) of section 68 for the said services are the same person, then in such cases exemption for the specified services shall be claimed by that person; (b) the exporter shall claim the exemption by filing a claim for refund of service tax paid on specified services : Provided that- (i) the manufacturer-exporter of the said goods shall file the claim for refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture or warehouse, and (ii) the exporter, other than a manufacturer-exporter, shall file the claim for refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the registered office or the head office, as the case may be, of such exporter; (c) the exporter who is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s exemption is available by way of refund and not at the source. This does not automatically allow the appellant to NOT pay service tax which they were liable to pay. For this reason, we do not find any force in the argument of the appellant that they are entitled to the benefit of this exemption notification.
10. The third issue contested in this case is invocation of extended period of limitation. We find from Para 4.9 of Order-in-Original that the appellant was fully aware of their liability to pay service tax on GTA services and had indeed obtained registration for the same services received in their Chennai unit but had not done so, in respect of the Kodur unit. Therefore, the appellant cannot plead ignorance about their liability to pay service tax and take registration and follow the appropriate procedures. For this reason, we find that the extended period of limitation has been correctly invoked. In view of the above, we find that the impugned order is correct and calls for no interference and the appeal is liable to be rejected and we do so.
11. The appeal is rejected and the impugned order is upheld.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
