9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant been covered under taxable service which going by the judgment of this Tribunal passed in the case of M/S. NANDGANJ SIHORI SUGAR CO. VERSUS CCE. LUCKNOW [ 2014 (5) TMI 138 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] is held to be not taxable. Appeal allowed. - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Shrivastava, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Confirmation of Service Tax demand of Rs.1,34,967/- through three show-cause notices for the period from 2004-05 to 2010-11 and order for its recovery under Section 73 of the Finance Act with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, penalty of Rs. 10,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. H.G. Dharmadhikari argued that truck owners were issuing monthly bills and not carrying consignments under consignment note issued by them as stipulated in Rule, 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for which they were supposed to be treated as goods transport operators, in which case Service Tax was not levialbe even under reverse charge mechanism in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati Vs. UOI reported in 1999 (112) ELT 365 (SC) for which levy on transport operators that was introduced vide Notification No. 05/1999-ST dated 28.02.1999 was withdrawn. He pointed out that again in 2004 Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nthly bill as in the case of present Appellant, cannot be considered as consignment notes to attract Service Tax on GTA and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of Challan number referred in the invoice, treating the same as consignment note, is unsustainable in both law and facts, for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be set aside. 4. In response to such submissions, learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department Mr. Ajay Kumar Shrivastava argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and stated that on thorough examination of all relevant points, Commissioner (Appeals) had even dropped penalty under Section 78 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng exemption from tax liability, had the activities of the Appellant been covered under taxable service which going by the judgment of this Tribunal passed in the case of Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd., cited supra is held to be not taxable. Therefore, in carrying forward the judicial precedent set by this Tribunal and in order to ensure consistency and predictability to the order passed by it, the following order is passed. THE ORDER 6. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Service Tax, Mumbai-II vide Order-in- Appeal No. MUM-SVTAX-002-APP-198-15-16 dated 02.03.2016 to the extent of confirmation of demand, interest and penalty is hereby set aside with consequential relief, if any. (Order pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
