9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, it was concluded by the Tribunal while considering the Stay Petition that the appellant has paid the said amount. Therefore, to that extent, the demand of service tax of Rs.12,99,559/- is not sustainable. Liability of appellant to pay tax - contention is that the service tax on the said service was paid by the service provider i.e. transporter, who raised the bills on the appellant, which showing that the service tax has been paid by them - HELD THAT:- It is evident from the records that the transporter, who has transported the goods at the premises of the appellant, has paid the service tax on the transportation service and the same is made evident from the invoices. In that circumstances, the demand of Rs.3,29,320/- is not sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Mohapatra, General Manager (Taxation) for the Appellant Shri P.K.Ghosh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The appellant, a mini integrated steel plant, is engaged in the manufacture of TMT Bars, Sponge Iron, Pig Iron, Billets, Silico Manganese and Ferro Manganese. The appellant is required the inputs to manufacture the final products and the input procured by the appellant for different modes of transportation and as Goods Transport Agency, has been brought into the service tax net w.e.f.13.12.2004 and the person who has received the transport agency service is requied to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to Rs.3,40,377/-, it is his contention that the appellant, as per the records, it is freight paid sale, which means that on the goods sold by the appellant, the transport charges have been paid for those transportation charges. Therefore, the appellant is not required to pay service tax as it is not an input service for the appellant qualifying as Goods Transport Agency. 3.3 Further, for the demand of Rs.4,33,547/-, it is his contention that the freight was paid to M/s Container Corporation of India for outward freight, which reveals that the payment was made to M/s Container Corporation of India for transportation of goods from their factory and the appellant has made a provision for the said payment which has been adjusted after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the appellant nor verified the same from their records. Therefore, it was concluded by the Tribunal while considering the Stay Petition that the appellant has paid the said amount. Therefore, to that extent, the demand of service tax of Rs.12,99,559/- is not sustainable. 7. It is evident from the records that the transporter, who has transported the goods at the premises of the appellant, has paid the service tax on the transportation service and the same is made evident from the invoices. In that circumstances, we hold that the demand of Rs.3,29,320/- is not sustainable against the appellant. 8. For the demand of Rs.3,40,377/-, it is evident from the record that the service received by the appellant for transportation of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
