TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax registration certificate No. AAJFA0918LST001. The appellant vide their letter dated 15-10-2007 have filed a refund claim before the Asstt. Commissioner, Guntur Division, for refund of Rs. 3,10,742 being the Service Tax already paid by them under protest (Rs. 2,36,061 under GAR 7, No. Nil, dated 31-8-2007 and GAR 7, No. Nil, dated 9-10-2007 for Rs. 74,681) which includes service tax of Rs. 2,84,335, Education Cess of Rs. 5,687, Higher and Secondary Education Cess of Rs. 1,345, and interest of Rs. 19,375, stating that they are not required to pay service tax as the services of goods transport operators used by them does not fall under taxable category of goods transport agency, for the reason that the transporters have not issued them cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by them towards transportation of goods by road in a goods carriage, albeit under protest. 3. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim filed by the appellants. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner also concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority and upheld the order-in-original. Hence this appeal. 4. The appellant is absent despite notice. Counsel for the appellant has sent written submissions to be considered along with grounds of appeal which are filed by them in their appeal memoranda. 5. Learned DR submits that the appellant is liable to pay service tax as a recipient of services under GTA. It is his submission that the lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that both the decisions are given by this Bench and I was one of the Members in both the decisions. 8. On a careful consideration of the said decisions, I find that the issue involved in those cases is regarding eligibility of services of goods transport given by goods transporters and transport operators and not given by transport agency. In addition to these facts, there was a claim of the appellant in those cases relating to eligibility to 75 per cent abatement of the total value for the discharge of service tax liability. The facts in the case before us are totally different than the facts which was there in those cases. Hence, the ratio as laid down in those cases will not be applicable in this case. At the same time, I find that the ....