2015 (10) TMI 627 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant sugar factory wins service tax case on inward freight transportation services.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant sugar factory, stating they were not liable to pay service tax on inward freight for transportation services ... Demand of Service Tax – GTA service - reverse charge - appellant has been taking a stand that the amounts paid by them as inward freight was paid to owners of individual trucks and not to Goods Transport Agency – Held That:- there will be no Service Tax liability on the appellant sugarcane mills, as they have not received the service from a Goods Transport Agency. - Contention of the Appellant is not controverted by Revenue in any way - Impugned order is unsustainable and is set aside –Decision in the case of Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd.[2014 (5) TMI 138 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] followed - Decided in favour of the Appellant. Issues:Service tax liability on inward freight paid by a sugar factory for transportation services during the financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06.Analysis:The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/VM/217/2009 dated 16/10/2009, concerning the payment of inward freight by the appellant sugar factory. The revenue authorities believed that the factory was required to pay service tax under the Goods Transportation Agency category as per Notification no. 35/2004-S.T. The appellant argued that the amounts paid were for combined expenses of harvesting, loading, and transportation of sugarcane, and thus, no service tax liability should arise. The Departmental Representative contended that the factory admitted to paying for harvesting, bullock cart charges, and transportation to individual truck owners, making them liable for service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The issue revolved around whether the factory was liable to pay service tax on the inward freight paid during the mentioned financial years.Upon review, it was found that the appellant paid the inward freight to individual truck owners and not to a Goods Transport Agency. The revenue did not contest this fact or provide evidence of consignment notes being issued by the truck owners. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment where it was clarified that a Goods Transport Agency must issue consignment notes, which were not done in this case. As a result, the Tribunal held that the appellant, being a sugar factory, did not receive services from a Goods Transport Agency and thus had no service tax liability. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant sugar factory, stating that they were not liable to pay service tax on the inward freight paid for transportation services during the financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06. The decision was based on the absence of consignment notes issued by the individual truck owners, which are necessary for a service to be classified under the Goods Transport Agency category. The judgment referenced a previous case to support the finding that mere transportation without proper documentation does not constitute a service provided by a Goods Transport Agency, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal and the allowance of the appellant's appeal.