Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (3) TMI 1285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ers under the agreement. Further, the appellant s customers are not privy to the agreement for hiring vehicles and the Margin Money collected and retained by the appellant is nothing but the surplus of transportation income, over and above the hire charges paid, on which service tax is paid after availment of 75% abatement. In the appellant s own case M/S. ASPINWALL CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE TIRUNELVELI [ 2019 (4) TMI 182 - CESTAT CHENNAI] for the previous period, this Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant by holding On perusal of the order as well as records, we do not find any element that would attract the activity or the amount collected by the appellant in relation to hiring of vehicles or transportation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terms mutually agreed between them. The invoices for the GTA services provided by the appellant to the clients reflect a lump-sum amount inclusive of all expenses incurred by the appellant with profits/margin, if any. The appellant while remitting payment towards service tax under the category of GTA services, has claimed abatement at the rate of 75% of the entire consideration received from the clients. 2.2 Pursuant to the service tax audit, the Department issued the show cause notice directing the appellant to show cause as to why: the extra amount collected from the clients over and above the amounts actually paid to the vehicle owners on back-to-back basis should not be classified under the category of Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... her submits that the undisputed facts of the case, flowing from the Order-in-Original as also the Order-in-Appeal are stated herein below: The appellant renders service of transporting goods of their customers in exchange for a consideration'; For this purpose, the appellant hires vehicles from third-party vehicle owners under agreement entered inter se, which are used for transporting goods of the appellant's customers; The appellant's customers are not privy to the Agreement for hiring vehicles; The appellant collects and retains a 'Margin Money , which is nothing but the surplus of Transportation income, over and above the hire charges paid; The appellant discharges Service Tax on the Margin Money' under GTA services, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se of the highways/roads constructed by them and, therefore, they have rendered a service. Non-specification of the charge is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and on that ground along, the show cause notice and the impugned order are liable to be set aside 4.6 Further, the learned Counsel submits that this issue is no more res integra and has been decided in favour of the appellant in the appellant s own case as reported in 2019 (4) TMI 182 CESTAT Chennai, wherein the identical issue was involved and the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s no knowledge whether the appellant is rendering service of transport of goods by using their own vehicles or by using the vehicles hired from other vehicle owners. This being the case, the allegation of the department that the extra amount collected is for procurement of services for their customers/client is factually incorrect. 10. That amount that has been collected by them for transportation of goods of their clients/customers has been thus subject to levy of service tax under GTA service. Thus the department cannot argue that the said amount has to fall under BAS and the appellant have to discharge service tax under BAS. On perusal of the order as well as records, we do not find any element that would attract the activity or the amou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates