9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and Tower parts which are transported to various distribution circles of M/s. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB), Mettur by engaging the transport services of two contractors viz., Mr. S. Natarajan and M/s. Annai Enterprises for the period from February 2010 to July 2011. Towards transportation of these materials, Freight amount of Rs.38,01,381/- was paid to these two transport contractors. 2.2 As the appellant has not obtained the Service Tax registration and have not filed the returns, Show Cause Notice Sl.No. 02/2013 (AC) dated 20.03.2013 was issued demanding the Service Tax and proposing penalties which was adjudicated confirming the demand of Service Tax along with interest and also imposing the penalties. 2.3 As their appeal to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Salem was rejected, the appellant came in appeal before this forum. 3.1 Being a recipient of GTA Services for transportation of Line materials and Tower parts to various distribution circles of TNEB, the Department has found the appellant liable for payment of Service Tax in terms of Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. In terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1994. 3.4 During the course of the verification of the records for the year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 and the issue of Service Tax liability was brought to the notice of the appellant. It appears the appellant have persuaded the transporters to pay the applicable Service Tax for the GTA Services rendered. A scrutiny of the appellate records has revealed that M/s. Annai Enterprises have remitted a sum of Rs.64,860/- vide Challan No. 03 dated 12.06.2012 and another contractor Mr. S. Natarajan have remitted a sum of Rs.43,613/- vide Challan No. 01 dated 09.05.2013. As the full Service Tax amount has been paid, the appellant has requested to drop the proceedings initiated in the Show Cause Notice. As the Show Cause Notice in the instant case was issued vide Sl.No. 02/2013 (AC) dated 20.03.2013, it is to be commented that major part of the Service Tax of Rs.64,860/- was paid by M/s. Annai Enterprises on 12.06.2012 before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. Whereas Mr. S. Natarajan have remitted a sum of Rs.43,613/- on 09.05.2013 which was within less than two months from the time of issuance of the Show Cause Notice. 3.5 The Ld. Advocate Shri Manoj Niranjan appeared and argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on said taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service receiver, which was not being levied in accordance with the said practice, shall not be required to be paid in respect of the said taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity during the aforesaid period." 3.7 It is submitted that in terms of the above Notifications, TANGEDCO is exempted from payment of Service Tax. He has referred to the following decisions of the Tribunal, in support of his contention that all the services related to transmission of electricity are exempted from the payment of Service Tax. i. KEC International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Chandigarh) [F.O. Nos. 40120-40121/2022 dated 23.08.2022]. ii. M.P. Power Transmission Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal [2011 (24) STR 67 (Tri. - Del.)]. iii. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut [2011 (28) STR 412 (Tri. - Del.)]. 3.8 The appellants further submitted that the Delhi Principal Bench has also passed identical orders in the case of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not paid Service Tax during the period though he was liable for payment of Service Tax on receipt of GTA Services. He has submitted that the appellant's argument that Notification No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 covers GTA Services is not correct as the Notification exempts only the services related to transmission of electricity and does not cover the transport of goods by road. 5. Heard both sides and we have perused all the documents and the records available in this appeal. 6.1 The main issue that is required to be decided in this appeal is relating to taxability of GTA Services on Reverse Charge basis received by TNEB, Mettur. 6.2 The second issue is regarding invocation of extended period for demand of Service Tax and imposition of penalties in the facts and the circumstances of this appeal. 7.1 It is an admitted fact that the transport contractors viz., Mr. S. Natarajan and M/s. Annai Enterprises have paid the demanded Service Tax. The Order-in-Original passed by the original adjudicating authority at paragraph No. 4.05 have recorded as follows:- "4.05. The party vide their reference letter GM/MWS/AO/AAO/AS/APS/AE/F.C.Excise/D.No.07/2013 dated 18.05.2013 informed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioning and installation of meters as also technical testing and analysis can easily be termed as services relating to the transmission and distribution of electricity. 7.6 Considering the above decision and as GTA Services were availed for transport of Line materials and Tower parts which are related to transmission of electricity are eligible for the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 and also Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010. In this case, whether any consignment note was issued by these transporters is not coming forth from the records to be called as GTA. These transporters should have issued consignment notes for transportation of these line materials and tower parts. Service Tax payable was computed only on the basis of freight amount paid to these transporters. 7.7 As the Service Tax demanded is meagre and also major portion of the Service Tax paid before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, the issue should have been settled as the Revenue has realized the entire tax. Demand of the tax again from TNEB would tantamount to double taxation which is not legally permissible. Various decisions of the judicial fora have laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
