AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 887
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice and Transportation of Goods by Road (GTA) service. Scrutiny of the books of account of the respondent revealed that the respondent were paying Service Tax after availing 75% abatement on the gross billed amount in respect of Custom House Agent service. 3. The Department took the view that the respondent was not eligible for the abatement as they were basically providing GTA service and not working as a 'pure agent' of the recipient of service in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. 4. Accordingly, two Show Cause Notices were issued, first demanding Service Tax to the tune of Rs.3,67,31,969/- (including cess) for the period from October 2008 to March 2013 and the second demanding Service Tax to the tune of Rs.1,87,09,402/-(including cess) for the period from April 2013 to September 2014. 5. On adjudication, the Ld. Commissioner vide the impugned order, confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs.19,309/-, being the Service Tax short paid by the respondent under CHA service for the Financial Year 2012-13; as the said amount had already been paid by the respondent, the same was appropriated in the impugned order. The ld. adjudi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts entered into by the respondent with their clients were primarily of three types, viz: - (i) Contract for Custom House Agent and GTA as composite services (ii) Contract for Custom House Agent Services only (iii) Contract for GTA Services only, which forms subject matter of the Departmental Appeal 7.1. It is the submission of the respondent that they have discharged applicable Service Tax as regards Custom House Agent service and its composite contracts; there is no dispute on payment of Service Tax in this regard. For providing GTA services exclusively, the respondent submits that they used to discharge Service Tax on forwarding charge after availing 75% abatement in terms of Notification No. 26/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012, read with its predecessor notifications. In this regard, it is stated that liability to Service Tax on GTA services was primarily under reverse charge in accordance with Notification No. 30/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012; they have taken separate registration vis-à-vis Custom House Agent service and Goods Transport Agency service and filed separate S.T.-3 Returns for the said services. 7.2. The Respondent states that on 12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2015 which has clarified that GTA is an entity providing services in relation to transport of goods by road and issuing consignment note, by whatever name called. The appellant- revenue's allegation that the respondent merely received GTA service as inward service lacks merit. In the result, there remains no justification for alleging that the respondent availed irregular abatement. (iii) The form as well as the substance of the service in question is undeniably that of GTA. While arriving at the finding that GTA service and CHA service were provided separately, the adjudicating authority rightly placed reliance on the decisions of : a) E. V. Mathani & Co. -vs- Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin reported in 2003 (157) ELT 101(T) b) Bhagyanagar Services -vs- Commissioner of Central Excise, ST- Hyderabad, reported in 2006 (4) STR 22 (T) and c) Commissioner -vs- United Shippers Limited reported in 2015 (39) STR J369 (SC). (iv) The grounds for challenge to the adjudication order are completely misconceived and the Department failed to acknowledge that provision of GTA services was a principal and independent activity of the respondent, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sought to be disputed. (vii) In any event, the respondent which issued consignment notes in terms of Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 ought to be regarded as the GTA service provider. Any contrary view would be offensive to Section 65B(26) of the Act. From the sample bills for lorry higher charges raised by different suppliers, clearing transporters and commission agents and their specimen undertakings, it would be evident that none had issued any consignment note and that all the parties had regarded the instant respondent as the GTA provider. In this regard, the respondent relies on the decision of Narendra Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus., C.Ex. & CGST, Agra reported in 2022 (64) GSTL 354 (T). (viii) The services in question were different from the end-to-end services provided under composite contracts, is duly evidenced from the sample contracts entered into between the respondent and its service recipient. The manner of raising bills for different services provided and the computation of appropriate service tax liability which has already been discharged has been certified by the respondent's Chartered Accountant vide its certificate issued on 10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o justification for confirming the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act. 7.3. In view of the above submissions, the respondent prays for rejecting the Revenue's appeal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 9. We observe that the respondent had entered into three different types of contracts. In respect of the composite contracts entered for CHA service and GTA service together, the respondents have been paying Service Tax and there is no dispute on these contracts. Even in respect of contracts entered solely for CHA service, there is no dispute as regards payment of Service Tax. The issue in the present appeal is related to the contracts entered only for GTA services, where the respondents have availed 75% abatement in terms of Notification No.26/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 and paid Service Tax on the balance 25% of the value. In these contracts the abatement availed by the respondent is being disputed by the Revenue. 9.1. The Revenue is of the view that the Custom House Agent service rendered by the respondent includes transportation activities and accordingly, the value of transportation service is includable in the taxable value of CHA serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g services to non-specified persons, in which cases it duly charged and paid the applicable service tax. 12. Further, we observe that the ld. adjudicating authority has given a categorical finding in the impugned order as to the eligibility of the respondent to avail 75% abatement on the transportation charges to pay service tax on the GTA service by the respondent. The relevant part of the impugned order is reproduced below: - "7.3 I find the noticee completely denied the allegation and stated that they took Service Tax Registration for taxable activity of (i) Customs House Agent Service and (ii) Transportation of Goods by Road Service. For providing such services, the noticee entered into separate written contracts with their clients and raised separate bills. In support they have submitted copies of the contracts for GTA service, for CHA service alongwith sample copies of bill for provision of GTA service and sample copies of bill for provision of CHA service. On perusal of the said contracts alongwith copies of bill as submitted by the noticee, I find that where contracts are only for transportation of goods, they raise bill for transportation charges and p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) Customs House Agent service and (ii) Transportation of Goods by Road Service. I further observe that the noticee provided GTA service by hiring of lorry as they issue consignment note. As per Rule 48 of the Rules, I find any goods transport agency which provides service in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage shall issue a consignment note to the recipient of service. In this juncture I like to mention that both the Show Cause Notices failed to adduce any evidence that the consignment note being issued by any third party service provider while alleging that GTA service was actually provided by the third party while the noticee mere produced the same. Therefore, even I accept the allegation made in the Show Cause Notices that GTA service is provided by the third party, then also I cannot accept the proposal of the Show Cause Notices that the value of GTA service should be added with CHA service while arriving the taxable value as the GTA service and CHA service were provided under separate contracts. I find that the noticee has rightly referred the case of E.V. Mathai and Co. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin [2003 (157)ELT101....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04. 2025 ) ============= Document 1 : ANNEXURE - B No. 8 630 ( CONSIGNMENT NOTEL CHALLAN Phone P. D. Prasad & Sons Pvt. Ltd. AUTHORISED CUSTOMS CLEARING AGENTS LAND CUSTOMS DIVISION 2, CLIVE GHAT STREET 2nd Floor, Unit No. 12 Kolkata- 700 001 . Queinf/84/12/3 JOD N 9/00 To Date ... Consignor Address Kultom Kwin Consignee M/s. Nullam Kills Address Received the undermentioned packages In good order and condition B/E No. Date From (Piace of despatched) : -.- To: Sni'kan MARKS & NOS. No. of Pkg. Description of Consignmt- APOSTU 1827- 92.88 Total Packages Signatore or sınır · - Truck/Cart No /205711820 river Sign Consignee Signature and Stamp N.B .:- Please sign in full name and put the full official Rubber Stamp & retum 02/11/14 (SWAPAN KR. BISWAS) Superintendent of Service Tax nange - 3 & 24. Dwa-m - 1 Service Tax Commissionerate € for P. D. PRASASI & SOINS (P) WITH Authorcod Signatory Document 2 FAX: 091 (1)33) 22434249 E-MAIL [email protected] PHONE 2210-5010/ 22105812 P. D. PRASAD & SONS PVT. LTD. Regd. Office: 2, N.C. DUTTA SARANI, 2ND FLOOR, SAGAR ESTATE, KOLKATA-700....