Court rules activity not under Goods Transport Agency service for tax. Appeals rejected.

The Court rejected the appeals, ruling that the activity in question did not fall under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service subject to service tax. The Court held that the appeals were not maintainable as per Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act and directed the Revenue to file a statutory appeal under Section 35-L of the Act to the Apex Court for further review.

---

---

Issues:
Whether the activity involved constitutes GTA service and is exigible to service tax.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against a common order by the Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, which held that the activity in question did not fall under GTA service. The primary issue was whether the price paid to truck owners and operators for transporting goods by road is subject to service tax under the category of goods transport agency service. The Tribunal's decision was that it was not subject to service tax, leading to the question of whether the activity itself is liable to service tax.

The Court noted that Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, applicable to the Finance Act 1994, mandates that such questions must be determined by the Apex Court in an appeal filed under Section 35-L of the Act. The Court's jurisdiction to address this issue is explicitly excluded under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act. Citing a previous judgment in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax v. M/s. Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (India), the Court held that the appeals were not maintainable. The Court rejected the appeals, granting the Revenue the liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act to the Apex Court.

---