TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice (GTA) under Section 65(105)(zzp) read with Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Notification No. 36/2004-ST dated 31.12.2004 read with Rule 3(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 2. Shri Mrugesh G. Pandya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in the present case, the transportation of effluent is involved, which is neither sold nor saleable in the market therefore, the transportation of goods which is other than goods defined in the Sale of Goods Act, cannot be taxed under Goods Transport Agency service. In support, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- (a) Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited vs. CCE - 2015 (37) STR 1076 (Tri. Ahmd.) (b) Effluent Channel Project Li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called" As per the combined reading of both the definitions given above, it is clear that only for such transportation which is for transport of goods defined under Section 65(50), will be covered under the service of Goods Transport Agency. In the present case, the transport of goods is in respect of effluent which is neither sold nor saleable in the market therefore, the same is not qualify as goods defined under Section 65(50). Accordingly, the transportation of effluent will not fall under the Goods Transport Agency service. This issue has been considered in various judgments as below:- (a) In the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GAT)] (iii) Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (WVG) Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Indore [1985 (21) E.L.T. 832 (Tribunal) (iv) Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2004 (178) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.)]. 2.1 It was also the case of the ld. Advocate that the demand is clearly time-barred in view of the correspondence exchanged between the appellant and the Department as brought out in Para 9(f) of the grounds of appeal. 3. Shri G.P. Thomas (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that under the Service Tax law it is not necessary that an activity should be necessarily in relation to goods bought and sold in the market. Ld. AR thus defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. 4. Heard both sides and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he contract of sale;". 4.3 As per definition of 'goods' given in Section 65(50) of the Finance Act, 1994 the meaning of 'goods' for the purpose of Service Tax law has to be as assigned in Clause (7) of Section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. As per the provisions of Section 2(7) of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 the goods has to be a category of 'movable property'. Movable property in general trade parlance is considered as a property in goods which can fetch certain price. In the present facts and circumstances of the case the effluent discharge facility is for disposal of a waste which is not being purchased by any person but is only being disposed of by utilizing the services of the appellant. As the relevant facilities/services of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.2018. He also pointed out that the said decisions have been accepted have been merit and in appellant own case Commissioner (Appeals) as dropped the demand for the subsequent period following the said decision of Tribunal. The said order has also been accepted by Revenue. Ld. AR realise on the impugned order. He stated that even if effluents do not have any commercial value. The do not cease to be goods. 2. We have gone through the revival submissions, we find that the issue before us is if the service provided by the appellant is a taxable service. The prime contention of the appellant is that Industrial Effluent transported by them are not goods and therefore no service Tax can be charged under the head of "Transportation of Go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s correct and applicable in this case. In the said circular/letter CBEC had clarified that incineration/shredding of biomedical waste cannot be called as processing of goods and the said activity does not qualify as processing of goods on behalf of the client. In the case in hand, the same analogy will apply inasmuch appellant is treating waste received from Apte Organics for which they get paid. We find strong force in the submissions made by the learned counsel that the ratio of the Tribunal's following decisions will apply in the case in hand : (a) Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 622 (b) Globe Enviro Care Ltd. - 2011 (21) S.T.R. 241 (c) Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. - 2014 (36) S.T.R. 955 ....