2013 (1) TMI 432 - AT - Service Tax

Manufacturer wins appeal on Service Tax liability for engaging individual truck owners.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant, who was a manufacturer of excisable goods. The appellant did not avail the services of ... Service Tax on GTA services - assessee contested against availing of any services of GTA - Held that:- Undisputedly during the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2008, the appellant had availed the services of transporters for transporting their goods from the factory and also bringing the raw materials into their factory who were owners of the vehicles as supported by producing the payment vouchers made to individual truck owners. From the said documents it is clear that they had not availed the services of goods transport agency(GTA) during the said period. See Bellary Iron & Ores Pvt.Ltd. vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Belgaum [2009 (12) TMI 150 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - in favour of assessee. Issues:- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.65/ST/Kol/2012 dated 15.02.2012 regarding Service Tax on services of goods transport agency (GTA) availed by the appellant from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2008.Analysis:1. The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, was alleged to have availed the services of a goods transport agency (GTA) during the specified period and was required to pay Service Tax as per Notification No.35/04-ST dated 03.12.2004. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of Service Tax, which was initially demanded at Rs.23,707/- but reduced to Rs.15,451/- by the adjudicating authority, who also imposed an equivalent penalty. The appellant, dissatisfied with the decision, filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal), which was rejected, leading to the current appeal.2. The appellant contended that they did not avail the services of a GTA during the relevant period but engaged individual truck owners and drivers for transportation. They argued that as they did not use a GTA, no Service Tax was applicable. The appellant cited previous Tribunal judgments to support their claim, emphasizing that their services did not fall under the GTA category. The Department could not counter this argument and accepted that individual truck owners provided the services.3. After reviewing the evidence presented, including payment vouchers to individual truck owners, the Tribunal found that the appellant indeed did not avail the services of a GTA during the specified period. Citing precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the services provided by individual truck owners, not operated by a GTA, were not liable to Service Tax. The Tribunal referred to a specific case to support this decision.4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) and allowed the appellant's appeal, granting any consequential relief as per the law. The judgment highlighted the principle established by previous cases and the distinction between services provided by individual truck owners and those provided by a GTA, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.