TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 887
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. adjudicating authority, however, has dropped the demand o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iz: - (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 12.02.2004, an audit objection was raised wherein it was alleged that the abatement availed by them in respect of G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent 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, as evident from its Memorandum and Articles of Association. The respondent had also sought separate registration for providing the said services. The Appellant's su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice 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 10.10.2014. In the instant case, the contracts for GTA service were distinct and income referable thereto could not have been clubbed with the income under separate contracts, as per the ratio l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 service in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. Accordingly, the Revenue contends that the respondent is not eligible for the abatement of 75% as provided under Notification No. 26/2012 dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gibility 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 pay Service Tax after availing 75% abatement on transport charges. In respect of composite contracts i.e. where they undertook transportation of goods by road alongwith activity of CHA under a single contract, they performed the transportations activ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt 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(Tri.- Bang.)] and Bhagyanagar Services versus Commissioner of Central Excise, ST-Hyderabad [2006(4)STR22(Tri. Bang.)). I find in the point 4 of the order in the case of E.V. Mathai and Co. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin, wherein Hon'ble Tribunal held that- "I have carefully considered the ....