TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... covered under the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) under Section 65(105)(zzp) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 65(50b) ibid. It is also their case that as per sub-rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the person liable for paying Service Tax on the transportation service provided by a GTA in cases where the consignor or consignee of goods falls under any of the seven sub-clauses under the said sub-rule, is the person who pays or is liable to pay freight for the transportation of such goods, which in the instant case having been made by the assessee, therefore, the assessee was liable to pay Service Tax. 1.2 It appears that the assessee furnished the details of freight paid to various contractors for transportat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vehicle to be used, the distance to be covered and the rate of transportation which was payable on per tonne basis. * The rate of transportation as of above released varied between Rs.20/- per M.T. to Rs.31/- per M.T., depending on the distance to be covered and in any case, the maximum transportation charges payable per trip was Rs.558/- only. * In terms of Notification No. 34/2004-S.T. dated 03.12.2004 is applicable only for goods transport vehicles used by goods transport agencies (GTA) whereas the transporters who were involved in the case on hand are not the GTA but the owners of the vehicles used. * GTA is applicable only to big transport companies owning a fleet of trucks or lorries and those who issue consignment note, wherea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.)] iii. Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raigad [2006 (199) E.L.T. 509 (Tri. - Mum.)] iv. NRC Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Thane-I [2007 (209) E.L.T. 22 (Tri. - Del.)] v. Chemicals & Fibres of India Ltd. v. Collector of C.Ex., Bombay [1988 (33) E.L.T. 551 (Tri.)] vi. Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Cus. [1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)] vii. Secretary, Town Hall Committee v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Mysore [2007 (8) S.T.R. 170 (Tri. - Bang.)] viii. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur-I v. Sikar Ex-Servicemen Welfare Co-op. Society Ltd. [2006 (4) S.T.R. 213 (Tri. - Del.)] ix. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Collector of C.Ex., Haldia [2006 (197)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trucks, with whom the appellant had directly entered into contract for transportation, such transport operators were not covered by the definition of GTA and hence, the appellant entertained a bona fide doubt that there was no liability to pay Service tax on the freights that were paid directly to such transport operators / truck owners. 8.2 Further, he would submit that such truck owners also did not issue any consignment note, which is also an essential ingredient of the definition of GTA under the statute, but however, the activity of transportation was executed as per the work orders issued to the respective truck owners. 8.3 He would also refer to the following orders of various CESTAT Benches to contend that the leviability of Servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of M/s. K.M.B. Granites Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Salem [2010 (19) S.T.R. 437 (Tri. - Chennai)] this Bench had an occasion to consider an almost similar issue of liability to Service Tax on services of GTA vis-à-vis Rule 2(1)(d)(v) ibid. After hearing both sides, this Bench has held as under: - "3. Heard both sides. It has been consistently contested by the assessees that services were not being provided to them by the Goods Transport Agency but by individual truck owners/lorry owners. Before the lower appellate authority they have also provided written submissions in support of their above submission. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Lakshminarayana Mining Co. v. CST, Bangalore - 2009 (16) S.T.R. 691 (Tri.....