TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee, admittedly engaged in the manufacture of Haulers, Belt Conveyors, Road Headers and spares thereof, has filed its ST-3 returns under Goods Transport Agency Services for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2009, but however, a Show Cause Notice dated 13.10.2009 came to be issued on the ground that the assessee had not filed any return under Business Auxiliary Services because, according to the Revenue, the procurement of goods or services which were inputs to the clients were taxable with effect from 10.09.2004 under Business Auxiliary Services, which becomes taxable under Section 65 (105) (zzb) of the Finance Act 1994. It was also alleged in the Show Cause Notice that the appellant had procured bearing plates from M/s. Eastern Traders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of goods. Further, it was also contended that merely because they sold the goods at a margin, that itself is not sufficient to demand Service Tax. The following decisions were relied upon by the appellant: (i) J.R. Communications & Power Controls Vs. C.C.E., Trichy - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 379 (Tri. - Chennai); (ii) State of Gujarat Vs. HaridasMuljiThakker - 84 STC 317 (Guj.); (iii) Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Commercial Taxes - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.). 2.3.2 The appellant also contended that the Show Cause Notice was contradicting itself as regards the classification of service inasmuch as, in paragraph 10 it was shown that the service was under 'Business Auxiliary Service' whereas in paragraph 5 it is alleged that the serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal in the case of M/s. AIA Engineering Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of S.T., Ahmedabad reported in 2016 (41) S.T.R. 974 (Tri. - Ahmd.) and that therefore, the issue is no more res integra. 7. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue supported the findings of the lower authorities, but however, was unable to place on record any contrary decisions in his support; nor was he able to distinguish the decision in the case of M/s. AIA Engineering Ltd. (supra). 8. Having heard both sides, we are of the considered opinion that the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. AIA Engineering Ltd. (supra) squarely covers the issue on hand and the relevant paragraphs read as under : "9.1.2 It can be seen fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10. Secondly, we find that the adjudicating authority has not correctly appreciated the positions of Section 6 of the CST Act in as much as, on perusal of said section, we note it provides interstate sales transactions effected by transfer of documents of title to such goods during the movement from one state to another. In the case in hand, the goods moved from Karnataka to Jharkhand the transfer of documents took place during such movement is not in dispute. 11. Thirdly, we find that the adjudicating authority has illustrated the transactions in Paragraph No. 41 of the OIO. On perusal of such illustrative documents, we find that the WSL has raised the Excise duty paying invoice on which they have indicated discharge of CST @ 3% and invo....