Appellant prevails as services not deemed GTA due to missing consignment notes, exempt from tax liability.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the services received did not qualify as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Service due to the absence of consignment notes from the transporters. As a result, the appellant was found not liable for the levy and collection of service tax, interest, or penalty under the GTA service category, overturning the decisions of the lower authorities. No costs were imposed on the appellant as a result of this judgment.

---

---

Issues: Classification of service as Goods Transport Agency Service; Requirement of consignment note for GTA service; Liability of service tax on the appellant.

The judgment pertains to the classification of services received by the appellant as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Service. The appellant, a recipient of service, engaged private parties to transport coal from the pithead to the Railway siding via an intermediary journey to a crusher unit. The appellant argued that since the transporters did not issue any consignment note, the service provided did not fall under GTA service, making the appellant immune to the levy under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.

The authorities below rejected the appellant's contention, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions in similar cases, namely South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and Western Coal Fields Ltd., where it was established that the issuance of a consignment note is a crucial requirement for the classification of an activity as GTA service under Section 65(50b) of the Act.

Given that the transporters did not issue any consignment note for the services provided to the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that there was no rendition of GTA service. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order and declared the appellant not liable for the levy and collection of service tax, interest, or penalty under the category of Goods Transport Agency service. The judgment did not impose any costs on the appellant.

---