TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... common order as the issue involved is the same for different periods. Sr. No. Appeal No. OIO No./OIA& Date Period Service tax Demand 1. ST/11712/2014 AHM-SVTAX-OOO-APP-372-13-14 dated 26.02.2014 July 2010 to March 2011 5,70,048/-- 2. ST/11685/2013 46/2013(STC)/SKS/Commr.(A)/Ahd dated 18.03.2013 April 2011 43,456/- 3. ST/11711/2014 AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-372-13-14 dated 26.02.2014 16.05.2008 to 30.06.2010 13,19,272/- 2. The brief facts of the case are that Appellant is supplying Trucks to ONGC under contract for inter-locational movement of ONGC material. The appellant has classified the services under "Goods Transport Agency". ONGC has paid Service tax on taxable value by availing abatement under GTA. The appellant had issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... seven trucks to ONGC, which are registered as goods carriage under provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Appellant is paying Goods Tax under carriage of Goods Taxation Act. This means trucks are goods carriage. The trucks are used for transportation of goods as per order of ONGC by road as per distance. Since all the conditions of the definition of taxable service of GTA define under Section 65(105)(zzp) of Finance Act, 1994 and definition of 'Goods Transport Agency Services' under Section 65(50b) of Finance Act, 1994 are satisfied, the tax was correctly paid by the ONGC and cannot be subjected to tax again in the hands of appellant under different category. 4. He also submits that the Ld. Commissioner have not gone through the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded based on the service existing as on 24.04.2008. Appellant has entered into agreement for three years from 24.04.2008 to 23.04.2011. The appellant cannot be considered liable for payment of Service tax which was not existing at the time of entering into agreement. 6. He also argued that in the CBEC circular dated 29.02.2008 list of machinery is mentioned. This list does not include vehicles meant for transport of goods because these are covered under transport of goods by road service. 7. He further submits that in case of appellant, possession of the goods shall be said to be transferred to ONGC as per the agreement. Right of possession is one of the bundle of rights that the owner of the goods possesses. For providing the service of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansaction with ONGC. Therefore services rendered are covered under the category of 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service'. This contention of the department is based on misconception that if VAT is paid then no service tax and if VAT is not paid then service tax is payable under the category of 'supply of tangible goods for use'. There is no such requirement in the act that in order to classify a service under the category of 'supply of tangible goods services, VAT must be paid. 10. Without prejudice, he further submits that if appellant is liable to pay service tax the same is required to be calculated in an inclusive matter. The cum-tax benefit is available to the appellant. Further appellant is also eligible for Cenvat credit. 11. Shri Aja....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... field equipment, machinery, mud-chemical etc. in the Oil field on the condition prevailing at the work sites of ONGC. As regard the said transaction appellant strongly argued that the ONGC is paying service tax under the category of 'Goods Transport Agency" and they are providing GTA services. We agree with the submission of the ld. Chartered Accountant that no double taxation is permissible under the law, subject to the decision that under which category the service in question legally falls. If the Service Tax has already been paid by the M/s ONGC, then the same cannot be demanded again. However, we find that though the appellant has taken this plea before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), there is no verification of the fact that on the s....