GTA service tax exemption denied, recipient liability sustained for factory transport services, while penalty was waived.

Exemption from service tax on GTA services under Notification No. 29/2008-ST was denied because the notification did not extend to GTA service taxable under Section 65(105)(zzp) of the Finance Act, 1994. The factory recipient was held liable to pay service tax on GTA services for transport of components, as the components were treated as goods and the appellant fell within Rule 2(1)(v)(a) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994; liability to tax and interest was therefore sustained. Penalty was waived in view of the surrounding facts and the appellant's status as a railway ministry unit, so the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from service tax on GTA services under Notification No. 29/2008-ST; (ii) whether the appellant, being a factory registered under the Factories Act and using GTA services for transport of components, was liable to pay service tax as recipient of the service; (iii) whether penalty was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from service tax on GTA services under Notification No. 29/2008-ST.

Analysis: The exemption notification relied upon was held inapplicable to GTA service covered by Section 65(105)(zzp) of the Finance Act, 1994. The notification did not extend the claimed benefit to the taxable category in question.

Conclusion: The exemption claim was rejected against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant, being a factory registered under the Factories Act and using GTA services for transport of components, was liable to pay service tax as recipient of the service.

Analysis: The manufactured components were treated as goods because they were movable property within the meaning of Section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. As the appellant was a factory, it fell within Rule 2(1)(v)(a) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as a person liable to pay service tax on GTA services. No distinction was drawn between a Government factory and any other factory for this purpose.

Conclusion: Liability to pay service tax and interest was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty was sustainable.

Analysis: In view of the surrounding facts and the appellant's status as a railway ministry unit, the Tribunal exercised discretion to waive the penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service tax demand and interest were sustained, but the penalty was deleted, resulting in partial relief to the appellant.

---