TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant is a manufacturer of sugar and also registered as service receivers under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service. A show-cause notice was issued covering the period 01/01/2005 to 31/05/2006 on the ground that the appellant though had paid freight, but had not paid the service tax of Rs. 37,26,463/- for the transportation of sugarcane from the field to the factory; the appellant rebutted the proposed demand by contending that the same was in the first place time-barred, secondly the tractor with trailer which was used for transportation belonged to farmers, the same was not a commercial vehicle and that the farmers were not the Goods Transport Agency. In the adjudication, however, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[2017(3) GSTL 169 (Tri. Mum.)] ii. Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2014(34) STR 850 (Tri. Del.)] iii. Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. CCE [2016(41) STR 438 (Tri. Mum.)] iv. Lakshminarayana Mining Co. Vs. CCE [2019(27) GSTL 745 (Tri. Bang.)] v. CCE Vs. JWC Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [2019(22) GSTL 237 (Tri. Mum.)] vi. Doddanavar Brothers Vs. CCE [2017-TIOL- 103-CESTAT-BANG] vii. Ninanidevi SSK Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017-TIOL- 375-CESTAT-MUM] viii. Shri Chhatrapati SSK Ltd. Vs. CCE [2016- TIOL-2483-CESTAT-MUM] ix. Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017-TIOL-606-CESTAT-MUM] x. CCE Vs. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. [2018- TIOL-966-CESTAT-DEL] 3. Per cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of acceptance of cargo for transport under consignment notes. 5.2. The learned Bench after considering other orders of various Benches, concluded as under:- 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.3. In the decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad High Court in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra) which was relied upon by the learned AR, facts as noted by the Hon'ble High Court are as under:- "... ... ... 4. Facts in brief giving rise to present appeal are that appellants, M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., having its unit at Sampurnanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri, and Satha, District Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the "assessee 1 and assessee 2" respectively and jointly as "assessees") are engaged in manufacture of cane sugar and molasses. They are procuring sugarcane from farmers who deliver same at "Cane Collection Centers" set up by assessees. From "Cane Collection Centers"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd), would be liable to pay service tax. 13. In the present case, transporters transferring sugarcane from Cane Collection Centers to sugar mills and presenting bills for such service, in our view, squarely satisfy the requirement of Rule 2(d)(v) read with Section 65(50b) of Finance Act, 1994. We reiterate that transporters in the present case are clearly covered by the definition of "Goods Transport Agency" hence assessees are liable to pay service tax being within the definition of "person liable to pay service tax" under Rule 2(d)(v). ... ... ... ..." 5.5. The only factual difference between the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and the case on hand are, as noted by the Hon'ble High Court, that the sugarcane was tr....