9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cated. Demand of service tax has been confirmed on two issues - (i) Goods Transport Agency services for an amount Rs. 3,29,26,352/-and (ii) denial of Cenvat credit on input services of Rs. 92,80,442/-, which are the subject matter for consideration in this appeal. Penalty under Section 78 has also been imposed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, the Appellant is engaged in providing logistics services, incl. transportation of goods, and is registered with the service tax authorities. Show Cause Notice was issued to propose demand of service tax under the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) for payments made to the 'Lorry Suppliers'. The said demand was raised on the basis of expenses b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hyay, Ld. A/R, for the Revenue and perused the appeal records. 4. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that impugned order confirming the demand under GTA has travelled beyond the allegations made in the SCN. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, Nagpur vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC) to submit that since show cause notice is the foundation in the matter of levy and recovery of duty, the adjudication order cannot travel beyond the allegations made in the notice. He submitted that with regard to the allegations in SCN that the appellant is liable to pay tax under RCM on freight expenses, no service tax liability can be fastened on the assessee receiving transportation ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the service providers to the credit of Government Exchequer. He also submitted that the invoice amount alongwith service tax amount have been duly paid through cheque which fact is not in dispute. He relied on the following judgements to submit that the credit has been disallowed based on the surmises and conjectures :- CCE vs. Dhawan Steel Industries 2015 (324) ELT 169 (Tri-Del) Addi Alloys (P) Ltd vs. CCE 2017 (347) ELT 113 (Tri-Chand) S K Foils Ltd vs. CCE 2015 (315) ELT 258 (Tr-Del) Motabhai Iron & Steel Industries vs. CCE 2014 (302) ELT 69 (Tri-Ahm) Motabhai Iron & Steel Industries 2015 (316) ELT 374 (Guj.) M/s. Gargo Traders vs. The Jt. Commissioner, State Tax &Ors (WPA 1009 of 2022 - Cal HC dated 12.06.2023) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egally not permissible. In any case, we find that even the Ld. Commissioner has accepted in the order that the lorry suppliers were not required to issue consignment notes. Once the same is duly accepted, it cannot be said the appellant has received any GTA services from the lorry suppliers. In that case, Rule 2(1)(d)(v) prescribing liability under RCM cannot be invoked. Hence, the demand under GTA services cannot be sustained and thus set aside. 10. On the second issue regarding Cenvat credit matter, we find that the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order in Para 13.2 has stated that he would completely rely on the investigation made by the experienced officers trained for such purpose and of their findings that the said companies are sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
