2024 (8) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which was initially paid by the manufacturer of sugar and later deducted from the price of the sugarcane from the farmers. In the present case also, the transportation cost has been borne by the farmers and therefore, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to discharge service tax. Hence, there are no reason to deviate from the above said decision of the Tribunal. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Sneha, Advocate, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. M.A. Jithendra, Assistant Commissioner(AR) for the Respondent ORDER PER : D. M. MISRA This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No.493/2009 dated 01.12.2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en farmers and truck operators that the transport charges would be deducted by the appellant from the purchase price and same would be paid to the truck operators. She has further submitted that the Department alleged that the appellant being a consignee and also falling under the meaning 'person' specified in Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, is liable to pay service tax. She has submitted that the issue is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the following cases: i. Shri Prabhulingeshwar Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CC,CE&ST, Belgaum [2022(64) GSTL 350 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2017]77 taxmann.com 216 (Mumbai-CESTAT) iii. Lakshminaryana Mining .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly, we find that the claim of the appellant before the lower authorities as well as before us is that transportation charges are paid by the individual farmer is correct. We have scrutinised the bill No. 93537 which was produced by the learned Counsel. On perusal of the said bill which had been settled by the appellant, to the farmer, clearly indicated that the appellant had deducted an amount paid by them towards harvesting cost to labours and transportation cost of sugarcane to their factory. After reducing the amount paid, appellant settled balance bill to the farmer. We also find that the learned departmental representative putting on record a letter received also includes a bill settled by the appellant wherein it is indicated that app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X