2019 (7) TMI 917

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Finance Act, 1994 and imposed penalties under section 76, section 77 and section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is noticed from the records that appellant has paid the entire amount of service tax in dispute which has been appropriated in the impugned order-in-original no.34/2008 dated 21st August 2008 of Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant draws attention to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 1st August 2018 in CE No.44/2010 which has remanded the matter back to the Tribunal after the matter was remanded back to the Hon'ble High Court by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with certain directions in Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vs. Lakshminarayana Mining Company [2018 (9)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU, Bangalore vs. ABB [2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.)], which was on an entirely different footing was not appropriate. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka while passing the order consequent upon the remand of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that : "10. We therefore, find ourselves not benefitted by the appropriate and proper detailed findings of facts by the learned Tribunal with the relevant provisions of law in this regard. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law taking into account various statutory amendments and legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laghu Udyog Bharati'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng heard the rival submissions, we take note that this issue has come up before the Tribunal time and again. In a catena of decisions such as Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur vs. Kanaka Durga Agro Oil Products Pvt Ltd [2009 (15) STR 399 (Tri.-Bang.)] followed in Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Karkhana Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III [2017 (3) GSTL 199 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and in Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Aurangabad vs. Jaikumar Fulchand Ajmera [2017 (48) STR 52 (Tri.-Mumbai)] the issue stands settled with detailed orders. In re Jaikumar Fulchand Ajmerai, it was held that "4. Our decision In Re : Kanaka Durga Oil Products Ltd. has excluded the individual truck owner from the purview of the tax in Section 6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to render the respondent to be a 'goods transport agency.' The demand of tax therefore, fails." 8. The service that is taxable is 'in relation to transport of goods by road and not transportation of goods by road. It is submitted that it is only such of those services which are in relation to transport of goods by road which are taxable and not the actual transport of goods by roads itself.' and in section 65(50b) of Finance Act, 1994 goods transport agency envisages rendering of service by a person in relation to transport of goods by road and issue of a consignment note by whatever name called. 9. From the above, it is clear that the tax liability will arise only upon the goods transport agency i.e., one who undertakes responsibility....