Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2009 (3) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ard both sides. 2. The appellants availed the services of road transport services for transport of the goods manufactured by them. In terms of the Finance Act, they are liable to discharge the service tax liability. They discharged the liability by calculating the service tax at 25% of the total freight charges paid by them in terms of Notification No. 32/2004-ST dt.3.12.2004 which provides the said facility on the condition that the said exemption is available in respect of a taxable service provider by a GTA to a customer in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage but not for consignor or consignee of goods who pays the freight. Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that the appellant does not appear t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fication No. 32/2004, even though they are recipient of the service. Once the matter is decided against the objection contained in the show cause notice, the adjudication authority should not have proceeded further on the point not raised in the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority has not properly considered the case law submitted by the appellants viz. Tuticorin Alkali Chemical & Fertilizers Vs. CCE, 2007 (81) RLT 661 (CESTAT-Che.)= 2007 (7) STR 672 (Tri.-Chennai). The demand is raised for the period from 1.1.2005 and the first circular referred by the Commissioner is dt. 27.5.2005. Further all the transporters bringing the incoming materials of the appellant are not registered under service tax. So, they were not required to fur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; b. any company established by o under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); c. any corporation established by or under any law; d. any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India; e. any co-operative society established by or under any law; f. any dealer of excisable goods, who is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the rules made thereunder; or g. any body corporate established, or a partnership firm registered, by or under any law. As the appellant is a factory registered under Factories Act, 1948, the liability to pay service tax is fixed on the appellant. This is not in doubt. In terms of Board's C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ency. Therefore, denial of the Cenvat credit of the service tax on GTS services on the grounds that they are availing the benefit of the 75% abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3.12.2004 by the lower adjudicating authority is not justified and not sustainable." 5.2 In respect of the Goods Transport Agency services, the service provider is undoubtedly goods transport agency. However, the liability to pay tax in certain cases has been shifted to either the consignor or to the consignee depending upon who actually paid the freight. In other cases where neither the consignee nor consignor is required to pay the service tax, the responsibility for paying service tax continues with .the concerned Goods Transport Agency. The condit....