TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which is then transported to the production installations where the effluent water is separated from the well head. The crude oil that emerges is then sent to the refinery through pipeline. Effluent water separated from the condensate is transported to the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) to fulfil pollution control norms. The present dispute revolves around three alleged taxable activities - 1. Service tax liability on freight paid towards transportation of crude oil and condensate within the operational area Rs.79,90,126 2. Freight paid towards transportation of effluents out of operational area to ETP Rs.11,24,258 3. Alleged short paid amount of service tax in respect of transportation services received for transpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eated as 'goods'. He draws our attention to the definition of ‚goods‛ as in section 65(50) of the Finance Act, 1994 which has the same meaning assigned to it in Section 2 (7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and submits that any material to fall within the definition of ‚goods‛, they should be known to market as material, commodity and articles that are being capable of sold. In this regard, he places reliance on the Tribunal decision in Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs CCE Vadodara - 2015 (37) STR 1076 (Tri.-Ahmd.) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Escorts Ltd. Vs CCE Faridabad - 2015 (319) ELT 406 (SC) and UOI Vs Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. - 1977 (1) ELT J199 (SC). He submits that for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice tax matters. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through facts. 5.1 As the appellants have conceded the tax liabilities of Rs. 79,90,126/- in respect of freight paid for transportation of crude oil condensate as also the tax liability of Rs. 67,935/- in respect of outward transportation, no interference is made in respect of these demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority in these matters. The said tax liabilities are therefore sustained. So ordered. 5.2 However, we find merit in the ld. Advocate's argument that appellants were under bonafide belief that condensate per se would not come within the scope of 'goods' and hence there would be no tax liability under GTA on that score. Such bonafide belief is reflected in paras ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Service Tax law has to be as assigned in Clause (7) of Section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. As per the provisions of Section 2(7) of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 the goods has to be a category of 'movable property'. Movable property in general trade parlance is considered as a property in goods which can fetch certain price. In the present facts and circumstances of the case the effluent discharge facility is for disposal of a waste which is not being purchased by any person but is only being disposed of by utilizing the services of the appellant. As the relevant facilities/services of transportation provided by appellant are not for the 'goods' as defined in Section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the same cannot be considered as a se....