2024 (6) TMI 1184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. Brief undisputed facts as set out in the impugned order at para 2 are that the appellant is one of the persons engaged by M/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation Limited, Puliyur ('CCCL' for short), for transportation of their raw materials/finished products in and out of their factory premises. The appellant had used their own vehicles and also hired vehicles of other transporters for rendering the above service. For this, the appellant raised freight bills on CCCL and received directly the amount including for the vehicles hired by them from other transporters. CCCL is understood to have paid Service Tax under GTA services on the freight amount as per the bills raised by the appellant under reverse charge mechanism as per Rule 2(1)(d)(v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resentative, for the Revenue. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and we have also gone through the order of co-ordinate Bench relied upon by the learned Advocate. The only issue that arises for our consideration is, "whether revenue was correct in fastening the appellant with service tax liability for service under BAS"? 6. In this case, it is the appellant who has hired the vehicles from vehicle owners and at the most, it could be a service provided by such vehicle owners to the Appellant for which there should have been flow of consideration by the appellant to them. That apart, we do not see any agreement or contract in this regard between the appellant and such vehicle owners for providing any service. 7. Undeniably, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed us elsewhere in this order, has assumed that the appellant was promoting transport business of the 'transporters' and later on, it is held that the appellant has 'given business to various lorry operators for transportation of goods relating to CCCL...'. It is a fact borne on record that in respect hired vehicles, CCCL were not paying the freight directly to the other transporters because, they were under no obligation to pay them. Hence, the assumption that the amount retained by the appellant was towards the promotion of transport business of the other transporters is without any basis. This is also because, the 'goods transport service' is provided to CCCL by these transporters but the payment for the same is by the appellant. Hence, ....