Appellant not liable for Service Tax as consignment notes not issued; appeal allowed with consequential relief.

The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay Service Tax under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services as consignment notes were not issued, a requirement for classification under GTA. The absence of consignment notes exempted the appellant from Service Tax liability, as established in previous decisions. The demand invoking the extended period was set aside due to revenue neutrality and prior knowledge by the Department. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay Service Tax under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services.
2. Requirement of consignment note issuance for GTA services.
3. Applicability of extended period for demand.

Summary:

1. Liability to Pay Service Tax under GTA Services:
The main issue was whether the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax under GTA services. The appellant argued that Custom House Agents engaged for transportation did not issue consignment notes, which is a requisite for the service to fall under GTA. The Tribunal noted that as per Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994, and Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the issuance of a consignment note is mandatory for a service to be classified as GTA services.

2. Requirement of Consignment Note Issuance:
The Tribunal examined whether the absence of consignment notes exempted the appellant from Service Tax liability. It referred to previous decisions, including Carris Pipes and Tubes Pvt. Ltd. and SK Cars India (P) Ltd., which established that without consignment notes, the service does not fall under GTA. The Tribunal reiterated that an invoice alone does not substitute a consignment note, which carries specific legal responsibilities.

3. Applicability of Extended Period for Demand:
The appellant also argued against the applicability of the extended period for demand, citing revenue neutrality and prior audits that had already raised the issue. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Department had full knowledge of the issue and still issued the Show Cause Notice invoking the extended period, which was deemed unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the demand for Service Tax could not be sustained due to the absence of consignment notes, aligning with previous judgments. Additionally, the demand invoking the extended period was set aside due to revenue neutrality and prior knowledge by the Department. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---