TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so to Sub-Section (1) of Section 73 read with Section 73 (2) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) I order for charging Interest at the appropriate rate under the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the amount of Service Tax confirmed at (i) above. (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred Only) per day for the period during which failure to pay the tax has continued or at the rate of 2% of such tax per month whichever is higher, starting with first day after the due date till 09.05.2008 upon M/s Dharamraj Singh, Sonebhadra, under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iv) For their failure to file ST-3 returns up to 10.05.2008, I impose a penalty of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) upon M/s Dharamraj Singh, Sonebhadra, under Section 77 of the Finance Act 1994. I impose a further penalty of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand Only) under Section 77 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 on them for their failure to file ST- 3 Returns for the subsequent period. (v) For their failure to obtain service tax registration under 'GTA Service', I impose a penalty of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand Only) or @ of Rupees Two Hundred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue involve in the present case is whether the appellants were engaged in providing services under the category of Transport of Goods by Road Service without obtaining the registration and payment of due service tax. The issue involved in this case is no longer res integra by following the various judicial pronouncements. Commissioner (Appeals) Allahabad himself has vide Order-in-Appeal No.ST/APPL/ALLD/2015 dated 16.09.2015 allowed the appeals on similar grounds including the present appeal also. Vide Order-in-Appeal No.Appeals-I/Meerut/NST/17/2014-15 dated 12/12/2014 similar order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Meerut. In view of the above, there is no merit in the impugned order and needs to be set aside. 4.1 We have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 For holding against the appellant impugned order records as follows:- 29. In this backdrop, I find that the issues to be decided by me in the present case are as under: (i) whether the services provided by the party are covered under the purview of service tax and appropriately classifiable u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te, by whatever name called, 32. Section 65 (50) of the Act defines the word 'goods' and which has the same meaning assigned to it in clause (7) of Section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The said clause is read as follows:" 'goods' means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money, and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be served before sale or under the contract of sale". 33. Section 65 (50a) of the Act defines 'goods carriage' as: "Goods carriage has the meaning assigned to it in clause (14) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988." As per Section 2 (14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 'goods carriage' means- "Any motor vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adopted for use upon road whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer, but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or vehicle of a specified type adapted for use only in a factory or any other enclosed premises or a vehi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 40. Rule 2 (1) (d) (v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 made certain specified person liable to pay service tax. The provisions of the said rules are reproduced below: where the consignor or consignee of goods is: (a) any factory registered or governed by the Factories Act; (b) any company formed or registered under the Companies Act; (c) any statutory corporation; (d) any registered society, (e) any co-operative society. (f) any dealer of excisable goods registered under the Central Excise Act/Rules; (g) any body corporate established by any law; (h) partnership firm. the person liable for paying service tax will be 'any person' who pays or is liable to pay freight either himself or through his agent for the transportation of such goods by road in a goods carriage'. Where, the consignor or consignee of goods do not fall in the above categories the goods transport agency shall be liable to pay service tax. 41. It can be seen from the above discussions and the provisions of law, that the services provided by the party to RFC are clearly liable to be classified as 'Transpor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the "Goods Transport Agency includes any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called..... (emphasis applied), and thus I hold that the transport challan and invoice issued in the present case qualify to be a consignment note, specified under Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, Further, the reverse charge mechanism provided under Rule 2 (1) (d) (v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 is not applicable since the service recipient (s) are not falling under any of the category of specified person. 42. Further, in a case of similar nature, the levibility of service tax on transportation of food grains for the period prior to 27.2.2010, has been upheld by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the judgement in the case of Harman Transport Co. vs. Food Corporation of India & Others in CWP No. 15974 of 2011 dated 16.04.2012. The High Court held as under: (9) It has also not disputed that 'service tax' was leviable on transport service concerning 'food grains and pulses till 27.2.2010 when those items were also included in the list of exempted items. It is pertinent to mention th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re consignment notes. Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 12.12.2014 referred by the Counsel has dropped the demand by observing as follows:- The moot point to decide is whether appellant is liable to pay Service Tax in respect of transportation provided by him. I find that appellant has contested that he is merely a transporter and does not fall in the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) and that transportation per se is not taxable unless same has been provided by a Goods Transport Agency. In a latest judgment of CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Nadarganj Sihori Sugar Co. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow[ 2014(46) GST/47 taxman.com 92], it was held that mere transportation of goods in a motor vehicle does not amount to Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services-GTA must provide service of transportation of goods under a consignment note, which should have particulars as prescribed in explanation to rule 4B- Consignment note issued by GTA represents its liability to: (a) transport consignment handed over to it to destination, (b) undertake delivery of same to consignee, and (c) temporarily store it till delivery-Merely a bill issued for transportation of goods ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of SICGIL India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Cus. & S.T.,Visakhapatnam (reported in 2010(19) S.T.R. 747), wherein it was held that " It is very clear in terms of Rule 2(1) (d) (v) that the liability to pay Service Tax is cost(sic) (cast) on the person who pays the freight.". Also Hon'ble Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of MSPL Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum (reported in 2009(13) S.T.R. 554) had the same opinion. 4.4 In case of The Ramco Cements Limited [Final Order No. 40853 / 2023 dated 27.09.2023] Chennai Bench has held as follows:- 11.1 In the case 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 submis....