2018 (8) TMI 1232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2008 of M/s. Lakshminarayana Mining Company Vs. CCE, Bengaluru. 2. The respondent assessee M/s. Lakshminarayana Mining Company, Bengaluru, during the relevant period, was engaged in the business of export of Iron Ore and was registered with the Department under the category of 'Goods Transport Agency Services' (GTA for short) also. 3. The period in question for payment of Service Tax for the period from 1.1.2005 to 30.09.2006 and the case against the respondent - assessee is that it h ad short paid the service tax by Rs. 92,51,572/- on the services rendered and they have paid service tax to the tune of Rs. 63,61,833/- against the total liability of Rs. 1,56,13,405/-. 4. The Learned Tribunal held in favour of assessee that the appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a) CCE & C Aurangabad Vs Padmashri V.V. Patil S.S.K. Ltd - 2007 (215) ELT 23 (BOM-H.C.) b) M/s. Sai Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (203) ELT 15 (M.P.-H.C.) 5.1. From the impugned order it is not obvious that the appellants had short paid service tax by not paying tax due in certain cases during the material period or paid less tax in respect of all consignments for which it had incurred freight. In any case, we find that the Commissioner has not effectively countered the plea of the appellants that they had not received services from a GTA. The Commissioner has attempted to classify services received from goods transport owners/goods transport operators as GTA service defined under Section 65 (50b) of the Act. We find that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been paid wrongly and the respondents are not liable to pay any service tax." This was in a case where differential service tax had been demanded in respect of services received from individual truck owners. 6. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and hold the appellants not liable to service tax under the category of GTA during the material period and allow this appeal." 5. The present appeal, filed by Revenue, in fact came to be disposed of by a co-ordinate bench of this court on 20.4.2011. The relevant portion of which is quoted below for reference: "5. Therefore the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the assesses are liable to pay service tax or not under the category of Goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gnment note by whatever name called. On the other hand, Section 65(105) (zzp), provides that the service to a customer by a goods transport agency, in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage. It is on the basis of the aforesaid definitions the High Court was required to decide as to whether the services provided by the respondent(s)/assessee(s) herein are covered by the aforesaid definitions. The High Court has not discussed the aforesaid issue. Instead, it has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by observing that the aforesaid questions of law are covered by the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 23.03.2011 in C.E.A. No.121/2009 and other connected matters titled as Commissioner of Central Excise &....