9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant to them. That apart, there are no agreement or contract in this regard between the appellant and such vehicle owners for providing any service - Undeniably, it was the responsibility of the appellant to provide GTA service to CCCL by virtue of the existing contract between them. It is a fact borne on record that in respect hired vehicles, CCCL were not paying the freight directly to the other transporters because, they were under no obligation to pay them. Hence, the assumption that the amount retained by the appellant was towards the promotion of transport business of the other transporters is without any basis. This is also because, the goods transport service is provided to CCCL by these transporters but the payment for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by them from other transporters. CCCL is understood to have paid Service Tax under GTA services on the freight amount as per the bills raised by the appellant under reverse charge mechanism as per Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for the period upto 30.06.2012 and as per Rule 2(1)(d)(B) r/w. Notification No.30/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012 for the later period. On verification, it appears to have ascertained that the consideration for GTA service was received by the appellant included the freight amount which was paid to such transporters by the appellant after retaining a margin which the appellant had termed the income / profit from hired vehicles as Market Freight in its books. A show-cause notice dated 19.2.2014 came to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation by the appellant to them. That apart, we do not see any agreement or contract in this regard between the appellant and such vehicle owners for providing any service. 7. Undeniably, it was the responsibility of the appellant to provide GTA service to CCCL by virtue of the existing contract between them. 8. To render smooth service in terms of its understanding with CCCL, it was the appellant who had availed the services of vehicle owners by hiring vehicles for providing GTA services to CCCL. 9. The adjudicating authority has wrongly assumed, as could be seen from para 4 of the Order in Original, that in the present case, the amount given by the Service Receiver through the assessee is not fully going to the Service Provider i.e. the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is also because, the goods transport service is provided to CCCL by these transporters but the payment for the same is by the appellant. Hence, to allege transport business the Revenue should have enough evidence to indicate that such transporters were in the transport business, they had an understanding with the appellant seeking promotion and that the same was for a consideration. The other aspect missed by the adjudicating authority is that such transporters/vehicle owners do not pay any amount/consideration to the appellant when their vehicles are hired and nor do we find reference to any contract/agreement between the appellant and transporters/vehicle owners in the order of the lower authority. Thus, there is no agreement/contrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
