TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b) Hiring of vehicles to other GTA service providers, who have issued consignment notes to their clients. c) Transfer of right to use goods. 3. In case, where transportation activity was carried out by the appellant and consignment note were issued, the liability to pay service tax was shifted to the service recipients under reverse charge mechanism and service recipient in such cases had paid the service tax under the category of Goods Transportation Agency services under reverse charge mechanism. The appellant also transported the goods by road without issuing consignment notes and such activity was not classifiable under any category of Goods Transport Agency services. For the period till June 2012 and later on it was covered under notifications and negative list with effect from July 2012. The appellant also hired vehicles to other GTA service providers who in turn issued consignment notes to their client. The said activity was exempted under notification no. 1/2009-ST dated 5.1.2009upto June 2012 and notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 for the period thereafter. Therefore, the appellant did not pay service tax on such services. In some cases, the appellant transferr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Tax, New Delhi 2016 (46) STR 513 (Tribunal Delhi). 6. He finally submits that the service tax is not payable in respect to the vehicles provided to GTA. Exemption from payment of services has been granted vide notification no. 1/2009-ST dated 5.1.2009 for the period upto June 2012 and Notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 for the period from July 2012 onwards. In alternate, he submits that appellant is entitled for tax cum benefit and the appellant shall be eligible to avail Cenvat Credit on input, input services and capital goods. He also submits that extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts of the case. Consequently, interest and penalty is not imposable. 7. On the other hand, learned AR submits that in this case, it is important to mention that in respect to so called service of transportation with or without issuance of the consignment note as categorised by the appellant, it was necessary to go through the legal provisions, GTA services and supply of tangible goods for use of services adjusted prior to 1.7.2012. It is also submitted that the appellant submitted copies of agreement with JMC, Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (Afcon) and L&T Ltd. with thei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tract, it was alleged that appellant is engaged in providing taxable service under the category of supply of tangible goods service. The said show cause notice has been adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority has recorded as under: "34.1 Noticee further argued that the whole demand in the Impugned SCN has been made on the basis of single contract with M/s JMC Projects (1) Ltd. (in short JMC"). whereas they have also provided such services to other service recipients. The nature of work in this case is transportation of goods and not in the nature of supply of tangible goods for use. As per the Agreement, they have to transport aggregate/ boulder/ GSB from Mertha Crushing Plant in Bharatpur (Raj.) of JMC to Hathras Yard of JMC in U.P. for construction of Agra-Aligarh Road Project awarded to JMC. They further submitted that in the case of STGU Service, the use of tangible goods is in the hands of service recipient only and scope of service provider is only limited to supply of such goods for use. In the instant Agreement, Noticee was required for all expenses viz. labour, equipment, salary of driver/ helper, cost of fuel, spares, lubricants toll cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice. I therefore, find that the aforesaid difference of Rs. 8,92,487.00/- in both amounts also pertains to considerations received against STGU Service. As regard the contract with Afcons, the Noticee has submitted copy of only one consignment note No. 201 dated 06.04.2015 involving transportation charges of Rs. 28,000.00/- whereas they have received the amount of Rs. 5,62,68,410.00/- from Afcons during 2015-16. However, the contract with Afcons is for transportation of goods, but in absence of consignment notes, the entire amount received by Noticee from Afcons cannot be treated as received against this contract, because for the purpose of GTA service issuance of consignment note is mandatory condition under the provisions of Rule 4B of the Rules. I further find that in the case of L&T Ltd., the Noticee has submitted copies of two Bills No. 0308 dated 19.07.2014 and 360 dated 31.07.2014 issued to said party for the amounts of Rs. 37,11,677.00/- and Rs. 41,21,072.00 respectively. Here also in the column of GR No. is left blank, which shows that GRS/ Consignment Notes have not been issued in this case also and such Bills cannot be treated as consignment notes." 12. As the basis ....