TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 1088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of goods by road, in terms of Notification No. 35/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004, availed services from M/s. Gati Ltd., M/s. Speedage Transports M/s. NECC Logistics Ltd., all three registered under 'Courier Agency service', M/s. Rahul Cargo, registered under 'Cargo Handling Service' and M/s. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., registered under 'Goods Transport Agency'; that the SCN dated 20-6-2007 was issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant availed Goods Transport Agency (GTA in short) services from the above five service providers, but failed to discharge the Service tax in terms of above notification and accordingly, he was directed to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 93,860/- and Education cess of Rs. 1,877/- should not be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....classification of inputs/input services cannot be changed at the receiver's end the appellant's end) as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 488 (S.C.) and Tribunal's decision in the case of Indusil Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2008 (222) E.L.T. 461; (iv) that M/s. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. is also falling in Kolhapur Division and the practice of charging Service tax on freight recovered from the customers and paying the same to the Government is well known to the Department, which is not challenged by the department and hence, again directing the appellant to pay Service tax is not correct; (v) that in this case, the dispute is of technical nature , in as much as the Depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ara - 2008 (89) RLT 776 (CESTAT Ahmd.) (c) Invincible Security Services v. CCE, Noida - 2009 (13) S.T.R. 185 (Tri.-Delhi) According to the above decisions, once the Service tax is paid by the service provider, there is no need to demand any further Service tax from the service receiver. 4. I have gone through the case records including record of PH and citations relied upon by the appellant/advocate, carefully. After dispensing with pre-deposit, I take the main appeal for final decision. The lone issue to be decided in the present appeal is that whether the appellant is liable to pay Service tax in terms of Rule 2(i)(v) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 towards services received from M/s. Gati Ltd., M/s. NECC Logistics Ltd., M/s. Speed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hand. 4.1 As contended by the appellant, there is no dispute with regard to the payment of Service tax paid by the service providers. In fact, the Service tax was collected in their bills from the appellant only. In short, there is only a 'technical error' i.e. instead of Service tax being paid by the appellant, the same was paid by the service providers. In other words, the Service tax being the indirect tax, the same has to be collected from the appellant only (consumer). Accordingly, again demanding the same Service tax from the appellant would amount to 'double taxation'. The decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Invincible Security Services v. CCE, Noida and the Tribunal's decision in Navyug Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & ....