TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant ordered to pre-deposit reduced sum for Goods Transport Agency services</h1> <h3>CHAITRA TRANSPORT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM </h3> CHAITRA TRANSPORT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM - 2009 (16) S.T.R. 339 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Liability to pre-deposit service tax amount for services rendered as a Goods Transport Agency.2. Interpretation of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of S.T.R., 1994 regarding the liability to pay service tax on goods transported.3. Reduction of the original demand amount and waiver of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.4. Decision on the pre-deposit amount and the timeline for compliance with no coercive measures till the appeal is decided.Analysis:1. The appellant was required to pre-deposit a specific amount for the services provided as a Goods Transport Agency. The appellant argued that they should not be considered as such before 2007 due to not issuing goods consignment lorry receipts. The advocate referred to Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of S.T.R., 1994, stating that the person liable to pay freight for goods transportation is also responsible for discharging the service tax liability. The appellant requested a complete waiver of the pre-deposit amount.2. The Departmental Representative mentioned that the original demand was higher but was reduced to a specific amount by the Appellate Authority. The appellant was held liable to pay this reduced amount. Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside. The Tribunal acknowledged the arguments from both sides but found it challenging to determine the appellant's liability conclusively at that stage.3. The Tribunal decided that a final conclusion on the appellant's liability could only be reached during the final hearing after examining all legal contentions thoroughly. As an interim measure, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to pre-deposit a reduced sum within a specified timeline. No coercive actions were to be taken until the appeal was fully decided. The matter was scheduled for compliance review on a specific date.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's considerations, the decision on the pre-deposit amount, and the timeline for compliance, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case's key issues and outcomes.
TaxTMI 