TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 871
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2006. The assessee herein is a Co-operative Sugar Mills, engaged in manufacture of sugar and registered under the category of Goods Transport by road for payment of Services Tax. Admittedly, during the period from November, 2005 to May, 2006, the assessee availed the services of Goods Transport Agency and paid Service Tax only on the value of freight amount exceeding Rs. 1,500/- and the Revenue issued a show cause notice on 16-10-2007, pointing out that the assessee should have remitted tax in respect of payment exceeding Rs. 750/-. Since the assessee had not discharged the Service Tax liability on the freight charges ranging from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 1,500/- during the period referred to above and had contravened the provisions of Sections 68 and 70 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994, read with Rules 6 and 7 of the Service Tax Rules, he was not entitled to the benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 34/2004-S.T., dated 30-12-2004. Notification No. 34/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 granted exemption from liability as under : "Service tax exemption to consignments transported by road when gross amount charged is upto Rs. 1,500/- or when gross amount charged is for an individual consignme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tire issue being revenue neutral, the question of demand of tax did not arise on the facts pleaded. The Revenue however did not agree with the said view of the objections of the assessee and ultimately confirmed the notice. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise on reiterating the objections taken. 5. The Commissioner, however, confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority; however on the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, he reduced the same to Rs. 7,51,956/- and he sustained the interest levied under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. On the allegation of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of Service Tax, the Commissioner held that there being no reasonable cause for failure to make payments, penalty was leviable. A reading of the order of the Commissioner (Appeal), particularly with reference to Notification No. 34/2004, shows that the assessee's case was not that the multiple consignments were transported in a goods carriage to multiple consignees and that the entire consignment of sugarcane was transported in a truck to single consignee, namely the assessee; conseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Central Excise & Customs, Guntur v. Kanaka Durga Agro Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 399 (Tri.-Bang.), the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal that Service Tax was not payable by the assessee, when transport services were rendered by the individual truck/transport operators. However, for the purpose of verification as to whether the transport services were rendered by the individual truck or transport operators, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, pointed out that the Tribunal had passed an order on a totally new ground not raised by the assessee in the appeal before the Tribunal or at the time of the adjudication proceedings under which the Deputy Commissioner demanded interest admittedly for the belated payment of Service Tax. "Taxable Service" is defined under Section 65(105)(zzp) to mean any service provided or to be provided to a customer, by a Goods Transport Agency in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage. Revenue further contended that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial concern", the Finance Act substituted the expression "any person who provides". Notification 34/2004-S.T. granting exemption from meeting the Service Tax liability in Goods Transport Agency reads as under :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable service provided by a goods transport agency to a customer, in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage, from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the said Act, where - (i) the gross amount charged on consignments transported in a goods carriage does not exceed rupees one thousand five hundred; or (ii) the gross amount charged on an individual consignment transported in a goods carriage does not exceed rupees seven hundred fifty. Explanation - For the purposes of this Notification, "an individual consignment" means all goods transported by a goods transport agency by road in a goods carriage for a consignee." 14. As is evident from the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion that the case does not fall for consideration under the extended period of limitation as given under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73. 17. We find from the show cause notice issued on 16-10-2007 that only on the examination of accounts maintained by the assessee, the proceedings themselves emanated on the allegation of short payment. It is not denied by the Revenue, that the assessee originally placed reliance on the Exemption Notification, not remitting Service Tax on the freight charges exceeding Rs. 750/-. Further on the allegation that the Exemption Notification would not apply to the case, there is no allegation of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. Thus, on the allegation of non-payment arising from the examination of accounts, we do not find that the Revenue would be justified in placing reliance on the extended period for limitation as provided for under Section 73(1) proviso of Finance Act. 18. We may point out herein on similar provision available under Section 11A(1) proviso of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, in the decision in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Anot....