2019 (2) TMI 209 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal upholds decision in favor of respondents in service tax dispute over transportation of Readymix Concrete

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI Versus M/s. RMC READYMIX (INDIA) P. LTD.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand, interest, and penalties imposed on the respondents for service ... GTA Service - appellant hired trucks owned by other persons on annual contract basis for transport of Readymix Concrete - Consignor-Consignee relationship - Held that:- It is very much clear that the respondents do not merely pay freight charges but are paying hire charges on a contract entered by them with the truck owners. The hire charges under the said annual contract includes various elements of charges for the truck such as, fuel and lubricants, salary/wages for drivers, maintenance & repairs charges, insurance charges for vehicles etc. As the hire charges include various elements, it is very much clear that there is no Consignor-Consignee relationship arising out of the contract and the payment is not mere freight charges as under GTA Services. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Larsen & Touboro [2018 (6) TMI 439 - CESTAT CHENNAI] on similar set of facts had held that the activity would not fall within the GTA Services. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues involved:Whether the respondents are liable to pay service tax under Goods Transport Agency Services for the transport of Readymix Concrete (RMC).Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the liability of the respondents to pay service tax under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Services for the transport of Readymix Concrete (RMC). The respondents were engaged in the process of making RMC and delivering it to the customer's site using their own trucks as well as trucks hired from other persons on an annual contract basis. The department contended that for the use of other trucks, the respondents were liable to pay service tax. A show-cause notice was issued for the period Jan. '05 to Jul. '07, resulting in the original authority confirming the demand, interest, and penalties. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the demand, interest, and penalties, leading the department to approach the Tribunal.The Authorized Representative for the department argued that since the appellants received consideration from the truck owners for transporting RMC, the demand raised in the show-cause notice was legal and proper. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents explained that the respondents did not engage any transport agency for the transport of RMC but entered into contracts with truck owners for hire charges that included various elements such as fuel, lubricants, driver wages, maintenance, repair charges, and insurance. The possession of the trucks for transporting RMC remained with the respondents, indicating that they were engaged in transporting their own goods to the customer's site for construction purposes.After hearing both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the facts and the legal position. It was observed that the respondents were not merely paying freight charges but hire charges under the annual contract with truck owners, covering various elements related to the truck. The absence of a Consignor - Consignee relationship and the nature of the payment indicated that the activity did not fall under GTA Services. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in a similar case and concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly appreciated the facts and applied the law. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal filed by the department was dismissed. The Cross objection was disposed of accordingly.