TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2005-06 to 2006-07, appellant is liable to discharge the Service Tax liability on the amounts paid by them as freight charges for transportation of sugarcane from fields. Both the lower authorities have come to a conclusion that appellant being a sugar factory has to discharge the Service Tax liability under Reverse Charge Mechanism for the transport charges paid, while it is the case of the appellant that transportation of sugarcane is done by the farmers as per the agreement and the said amount paid by the appellant as freight inward/transportation charges are recovered from individual farmers. 3. Learned Counsel would submit that they are contesting the issue on merits as well as on limitation. She would submits that appellant being a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MUM (ii) Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana 2016 (41) STR 438 (T) (iii) Nandganj Sihori Sugar 2014 (34) STR 850 (T) (iv) (a) Lakshiminarayan Minning 2009 (16) STR 691 (T) (iv) (b) Upheld by Karnataka HC 2010 (26) STR 517 (Kar.) (v) Caps & Prints - 2013 (30) STR 426 (T) (vi) Kanaka Durga - 2009 (15) STR 399 (T) (vii) Bellary Iron 2010 (18) STR 406 (T) It is also alternate submission that even if any Service Tax liability arises; the same will be registered to 25% of the total tax liability as per Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. It is her further submission that there was no deliberate withholding of information with intent to evade tax, hence show-cause notice dated 22.10.2010 is barred by limitation as in the sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellant, to the farmer, clearly indicated that the appellant had deducted an amount paid by them towards harvesting cost to labours and transportation cost of sugarcane to their factory. After reducing the amount paid, appellant settled balance bill to the farmer. We also find that the learned departmental representative putting on record a letter received also includes a bill settled by the appellant wherein it is indicated that appellant had deducted the transportation cost and paid the same to the transporter. On this factual matrix in this case, we have to hold that appellant need not pay Service Tax on the amount of transportation charges. If the appellant had borne and paid transportation charges that would have been liable ....