TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oal to the Goods Transport Agency, M/s Jai Jagdish Transport for beneficiated/washed coal sent to the buyers. 2. The brief facts are recapitulated for ease of reference. The appellant is having washery in Bilaspur for the purpose of coal beneficiation. For payment of service tax on such activity, the appellant is registered under 'Business Auxiliary Service'. During the years 2005-06 & 2006-07, various buyers of Coal (hereinafter referred to as 'the consignees') purchased Coal from various collieries of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (SECL) and despatched the Coal from mines to premises of the appellant for beneficiation. For transportation of Coal, the appellant paid the freight charges to the transporter and recovered the same from buyers of Coal (consignees). The appellant functioned as intermediary/agent between the seller of coal (SECL) and buyers of coal. The incidence of freight was borne by the consignees. Therefore, in terms of Rule 2(I)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the consignees were liable to make payment of service tax on freight amount paid to transporter for transportation of coal. The Department, however, contended that the appellant is liable to pay service ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice tax on freight amount paid to transporter however through the Appellant. 4. He stated that in compliance of the CESTAT's Final order dated 21.11.2012, the appellant had sent letters dated 05.09.2013 to all the 33 consignees wherein they were requested to forward/produce the proof of payment of service tax in respect of Financial Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 by the consignee. Nine(9) consignees submitted the challans, and Eighteen (18) consignees submitted their undertaking on their letterhead confirming deposition of service tax liability involved in the instant case. None of the consignees denied their service tax liability. 5. The learned counsel also submitted that the adjudicating authority has contended that the works orders and contracts are on principal-to-principal basis, which was incorrect. He submitted that the terms and conditions of contracts; e.g., From the contract dated 31.08.2006 entered with M/s Vandana Global Ltd., Raipur, it is evident that transportation charges from Gevra/Dipika to washery is @ Rs. 270/- PMT by CPCBL nominated transporter. This establishes the existence of the transporter nominated by the appellant. However, for arranging the transportat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hallans and stated that the service tax deposited by them through challans and undertaking are as follows: Proof of deposition of service tax of Rs. 85,94,954/- I CHALLANS SUBMITTED BY THE FOLLOWING BUYERS/CONSIGNEES S. No. Name of Consignee (buyer of Coal) Service Tax Deposited (involved in the impugned matter) Rs. 1. Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. Sonadih and Arasmeta (C.G.) 2471402 2. Vandana Global Ltd., M.G. Road, Raipur 289598 3. Shree Hare Krishna Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., Phase-II, Plot No. 106, Siltara Ind. Area, Raipur 247520 4. Shree Bajrang Power & Ispat Ltd., Vill-Borjhara, Distt. Raipur 157997 5. Mahendra Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd., M.G. Road, Raipur 101096 6. Vandana Vidhyut Ltd., Vandana Bhawan, M.G. Road, Raipur 46454 7. ACC Ltd. P.O. Rasmada, Durg 684116 8. Rashmi Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., 2/511, Choubey Colony, Raipur 55972 9. Hi tech Power & Steel Ltd., 199-C, 1st Floor, Main Road, Samta Colony, Raipur 228564 Total (I) 4282718 II UNDERTAKING SUBMITTED BY THE FOLLOWING CONSIGNEES S. No. Name of Consignee (buyer of Coal) Confirming Service Tax deposition (involved in the impugned matter) Rs. 1. G.R. Sponge Plot No. 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invokable. 8. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the Consignment Notes issued by M/s Jai Jagdish Transporter, name and address of consignee mentioned was that of the appellant. Further, perusal of the ledger account of the transporter, indicated that freight charges were also paid by the appellant to the transporter, against transportation of the coal by road. He submitted that the appellant is a company established by Companies Act, 1956 and paid transportation charges on the basis of consignment notes issued by the transporter. Therefore, the Appellant is liable to pay service tax in terms of Rule 2(I)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 9. The learned Authorised Representative further added that in all the contracts, the scope of work includes the job of transportation of raw coal from the SECL mines to the premises of the appellant by their appointed transport agency i.e. M/s Jai Jagdish Transport. Every contract stipulates in very clear terms that the work orders or contracts are entered into by the appellant wherein the rates are quoted as per the negotiated terms with different buyers in regard to the contractual job of transportation cost of raw coal f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Authorized Representative for the Department. It is evident that the current appeal against the impugned order will have to be decided within the contours of the earlier remand order dated 21.11.2012 of this Tribunal. For ease of reference, the relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter: "9. Prima-facie we are of the view that if service tax for transportation from mines to washery is paid by the buyer of coal, there is no case for demanding such tax from the respondent again. If respondent is claiming with supporting evidence that in any case the tax liability has been paid by the buyer of coal a finding of fact on such claim has to be on record for finally deciding the appeal period in the present appeal there is only a claim by the respondent and acceptance of the claim by the Commissioner by inspection of a few sample invoices about which revenue is aggrieved. 10. So there is a need to adjudicate this case afresh. So we set aside the order and remand the matter for a fresh decision in this matter after giving proper opportunity to the respondent to prove that service tax on all the impugned instances has been paid by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d washing of coal charges from the buyers of washed coal. This is exactly what the learned counsel of the appellant has pleaded before us, that the appellant was collecting the transportation costs from the buyer/consignee of the washed coal. The appellant was registered for carrying out beneficiation of coal and was discharging the service tax liability accordingly. This has been acknowledged by the adjudicating authority. We observe that the adjudicating authority has denied the evidence placed by the appellant on Bill Wise service tax reconciliation and service tax deposit challan in the case of M/s Lafarge India Pvt Ltd., on the grounds that they have not submitted their freight ledger copies not submitted any details of ST-3 returns filed by them. The adjudicating authority has gone on to hold that since M/s Lafarge India in ordinary course of business makes payment of other transportation expenses to various other transporters as well as to other entities and as the ST-3 returns reflects only the consolidated total freight amount, it cannot be ascertained from the documents submitted whether the payment of service tax shown to have been paid is with regard to the same transpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- 1,01,096/- 5. M/s Vandana Vidyut Ltd., Raipur 1,28,061/- 45,454/- 6. M/s ACC Jamul Cement Works 23,60,515/- 6,84,116/- 7. M/s Lafarge India (two units-one at Sonadih and other at Arasmeta) 1,31,95,326/- 24,71,401/- 8. Rashmi Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., 2/511, Choubey Colony, Raipur 5,20,582/- 55,972/- 9. Hi tech Power & Steel Ltd., 199-C, 1st floor, Main Road, Samta Colony, Raipur 9,30,529/- 2,28,564/- GRAND TOTAL (S. No. 1-9) 42,82,718/- GRAND TOTAL (S. No. 1-9) The appellant has also submitted the undertaking from 18 consignees that they have paid service tax on such transportation of coal. The appellant has not been able to submit any response from only 9 such consignees, wherein the service tax liability remaining to be reconciled is Rs. 386041/-. We note that the department has not placed any evidence on record to disprove the tax payments as confirmed by the buyers/consignees of washed coal. Instead, the adjudicating authority has rejected the evidence in a mechanical manner. We find that in similar circumstances in the case of M/s Angiplast Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad [2013 (32) STR 628 (Tri-Ahmd) has held: "8. On pe....