9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of service tax along with interest and penalty confirmed in the Order-in-Original. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of High Alumina Bricks, Fire Clay Bricks and Fire Clay Powder. They were availing the services of Goods Transport Agencies for transportation of their raw materials and finished goods and incurred freight charges. For the period 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2005, the Appellant paid service tax on 25% of the taxable value after availing abatement of 75% as provided under the notification 32/2004- ST dated 03.12.2004. For the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008, the appellant did not pay any service tax, as they claimed that they have not engaged any GTA for rendering the service of transp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30 (Tri.-Ahmd.) wherein it has been held that service tax cannot be demanded on 100% of the value. 4.1. The Appellant submits that the entire demand in this case is barred by limitation. The period of dispute in this case is from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008 and the Show Cause Notice was issued on 25.06.2008. They have registered with service tax and paying service tax under the category of GTA for the period 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2005. Subsequently, for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008, they have not paid service tax, as it is their contention that they have not engaged any GTA for rendering the service of transportation. Thus, they have not suppressed any information and hence extended period is not invocable in this case for demanding serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as in the instant cases and therefore, the availment of credit by the appellant-consignees does not put embargo over entitlement of 75% abatement for the purpose of discharging service tax liability on the transportation charges shown in the transport document. It is apparent that the consignee/consignor who have been covered under the condition of the Notification shall have to necessarily pay the service tax of GTA. Since the appellants are deemed provider of service of Goods Transport Agency under Section 68(2) it is obvious that input/capital goods credit for GTA cannot be availed by them as Goods Transport Agency. Therefore, denial of the Cenvat credit of the service tax on GTS services on the grounds that they are availing the benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en registered with the service tax department and paying service tax under the category of GTA for the period 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2005. Subsequently, for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008, they have not paid service tax, as they have not engaged any GTA for rendering the service of transportation. Thus, the appellant contended that they have not suppressed any information and hence, the extended period is not invocable in this case for demanding service tax. We find merit in the argument of the appellant. We observe that the Department has taken the freight charges available in the Balance Sheet for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and service tax account register for the year 2007-08, to demand service tax. Thus, it is evident that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
