TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port Agency" (GTA). In terms of Rule 2 (1) (d) (v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the respondent is made liable to pay service tax on reverse charge basis on GTA services. They have been discharging service tax under the said category. However, in respect of the transport of goods in lorries of capacity of upto 10 M.T. the freight charges was below Rs. 1,500/-. The respondent did not pay service tax on such consignments, claiming exemption under Notification 34/2004-ST dated 03/12/2004. Proceedings were initiated to demand service tax on GTA services, where the freight paid did not exceed Rs. 1,500/- per consignment. The Commissioner on adjudication of the demand notice, held that the respondent is eligible for exemption under the said notific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the said notification talks about transportation of goods and amount charged for transportation of goods on a consignment, transporter in a single goods carriage. It is submitted that the present notification makes the position clear that the same scope should be applied for all earlier period covered by Notification 34/2004-ST. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The respondent engaged various goods carriage vehicles for transport of goods, for which they are paying freight charges. The dispute in the present case is in respect such transports where, for the whole transport carriage, the freight paid exceeds Rs. 750/- but does not exceed Rs. 1,500/-. The responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." as to include a single "consignment" also. He drew support from provisions of General Clauses Act. We are not able to appreciate the logic and reasoning adopted by the learned Commissioner. The gross amount charged on an individual consignment transported in a goods carriage is specifically mentioned in Clause (ii) of the notification. In the present case, the individual consignment transported in a single lorry had freight amount exceeding Rs. 750/-, thereby clearly attracting provisions of Clause (ii). Clause (i) will apply where the gross amount charged on consignments transporter in a goods carriage does not exceed Rs. 1,500/-. In other words, clause (i) deals with gross amount charged/paid in respect of multiple consignments. In the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsignments transported in the same goods carriage and meant for the same consignee only if the aggregate freight in respect of such consignments is Rs. 750/- or below. He held that BIOL were entitled for exemption in cases where gross amount paid on individual consignments transported in a goods carriage did not exceed Rs. 750/- only and not in cases where gross amount paid on consignments transported in a goods carriage was upto Rs. 1500/- as contented by BIOL. He held BIOL liable to pay service tax on the freight amount paid in all cases where the gross amount charged/paid on an individual consignment transported in a goods carriage exceeded Rs. 750/-. BIOL has argued that the notification extended two types of exemption under the clauses....