TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 775
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ispute in the present appeal is with reference to service tax liability of the appellant on reverse-charge basis on "transport of goods by road services." The appellant entered into a contract with M/s NTPC on 15.04.2004. The contract covers inland transportation, insurance, installation, testing, commissioning and conducting guarantee tests of main plant package of STPP at Sipat. The appellant executed the said work and received consideration from M/s NTPC. The goods imported for the said project through Vishakhapattinam were cleared and transported to the site. The appellant engaged M/s Lee and Muirhead Ltd for clearance and transportation of the impugned equipments to the site. The appellant agreed to pay Rs. 927/- PMT towards handling o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law by not considering the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Service Tax, Raipur to pass the order which was the impugned before the Tribunal?" 3. The High Court observed that the order of the CESTAT is vitiated for non- consideration of the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Service Tax, Raipur, to initiate and conclude the present proceedings. The High Court answered the above question in the affirmative and consequently directed the CESTAT to consider the contention of the appellant regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner to pass the original order. Thus, the appeal came back to the Tribunal for afresh decision mainly on the jurisdiction contested by the appellant. 4. The ld C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty now under dispute with reference to contract with NTPC. The project office falls within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur and the transportation of goods for the project site in the present case was coordinated and managed by the project office. The appellant cannot take a plea that simply because they were registered with the Service Tax office in Hyderabad, no other officer has any jurisdiction to proceed against them on tax liability in other States even when tax liability arises in such State. There is no centralized registration in the present case and above all there is no registration for "goods transport agency" for service tax purposes by the appellant. 7. On merits of the case, he reiterated the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax registration number along with details of bank to the appellant. It is clear that only 4 services, namely, consulting engineer, commissioning and installation, maintenance or repair service and test, inspection, certification services were indicated in the said registration. There is no reference to GTA services in the said registration. Further, the second document of the appellant dated 31.01.2005 addressed to Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-II, Commissionerate by the appellant stated that for the sake of operational convenience the all India construction business activities is bifurcated into regional concept based on volume of business and some regional offices controlled business activities being carried-out in more than ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the convenience of the appellant does not satisfy the statutory requirement of central registration as per Rule 4. Here, we note that even for central registration, there can be cases where in respect of certain services, such central registration can be obtained and in respect of certain other taxable services, the liability can be on the individual premise from where such services were provided/received. One more important aspect is that the present dispute is with reference to the tax liability of the appellant on reverse-charge basis for goods transport service. As already noted, the appellant did not register themselves under the category of goods transport service, even in Hyderabad. 10. We have also examined the case laws relied ....