2014 (8) TMI 857 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant not liable for service tax on transport services without consignment notes. Adjudication order quashed.

SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR (CHATTISGARH)

The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay tax on the services received as the transporters did not issue consignment notes for coal ... GTA Services - Appellant entered into agreement with 24 transporters for transportation of the mined coal to the railway siding - None of the 24 transporters however issued a consignment note by whatever name called, whether falling within ambit of the definition of consignment note in Rule 4(B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 or otherwise for rendition of the service of transportation of coal to the railway siding - Held that:- Unambiguously enunciated the principle that qua the definition of Goods Transport Agencyenacted in Section 65 (50b) of the Act, to fall within the ambit of the defined expression issuance of a consignment note is non-derogable ingredient - factual matrix of this appeal since where admittedly no consignment notes were issued by the 24 transporters for transportation of the appellants coal, the Goods Transport Agency service cannot be held to have been rendered. That being the position the appellant is not liable to tax - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Appeal against adjudication order confirming service tax demand, penalty, and non-issuance of consignment notes by transporters.Analysis:The appellant appealed against an adjudication order confirming a service tax demand and penalties issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur. The order imposed a service tax demand of Rs. 8,82,03,138/- along with penalties under Section 78 of the Act and Rs. 1000/- each on noticees 2 to 25. The proceedings were initiated due to the appellant's failure to file returns or remit service tax for Goods Transport Agency services received during January 2005 to 30th June 2006.The appellant, engaged in mining and sale of coal, had agreements with 24 transporters for coal transportation. However, none of the transporters issued consignment notes for the service, as highlighted in the show cause notice. The absence of consignment notes was not alleged to be due to any influence from the appellant. The appellant argued that since no consignment notes were issued, the service did not fall under Goods Transport Agency service as defined in the Act.The Tribunal referred to previous judgments to clarify that the issuance of a consignment note is a crucial requirement for a service to be classified as Goods Transport Agency service. As the transporters did not issue consignment notes for coal transportation, the service could not be considered as falling within the ambit of Goods Transport Agency service. Therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay tax on the services received.Based on the legal principles and factual circumstances, the Tribunal held that the impugned adjudication order was unsustainable and quashed it. No costs were awarded in this matter.