2025 (6) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder-in-original dated 17.12.2016 OIO passed by the Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appellant's appeal. In the OIO, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed demand of service tax of Rs. 1,12,171/- on the appellant under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 Finance Act along with interest under section 75 of the Finance Act and imposed penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. 2. The appellant is registered with the service tax department under the category of "Goods Transport Agency Service". Its records for the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 were audited and it was found that the appellant transported goods for Jakodia Minerals, Raipur and it charged them Rs. 200/- per metric ton per trip. It used the serv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y one only) which should be recovered from the noticee under proviso to Section 73(1) read with section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, (ii) I confirm the demand of interest at appropriate rate which should be charged and recovered from the noticee under the provision of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the amount adjudged payable. (iii) I do not impose any penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994; (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) on the notice under Section 77 of the Finance Act 1994 for contravening the provisions the Finance Act 1994 and (v) I impose a penalty of Rs. 56,085/- (Rs. Fifty six thousand and eighty five only) on the noticee under the Section 78 of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant had received from Shri Bhupesh Kumar Agarwal. Both are essentially the same. The appellant earned a profit by paying Bhupesh Kumar Agarwal less and charging Jakodia Minerals more. 7. Goods were transported to the premises of Jakodia Minerals by the appellant engaging Bhupesh Kumar Agarwal as its sub-contractor for the purpose. The appellant treated this activity as GTA service by the appellant and as the recipient of the services of Bhupesh Kumar Agarwal, it paid service tax under reverse charge. It needs to be remembered that GTA services were chargeable to service tax under reverse charge both before 1.7.2012 and after this date. The service recipient had to pay service tax. 8. The case of the Revenue is that the profit which t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... GTA and it is undisputed that it chargeable to service tax under reverse charge and the service recipient has to pay the service tax. It is the same activity which the appellant had received from its sub-contractor and provided to its client. There is no separate activity. If that be so, it can only be called GTA service and the recipient has to pay service tax. For the appellant, its sub-contractor was the service provider and the appellant paid service tax under reverse charge. For Jhakodia Minerals, the appellant was the provider of GTA service. That being so, the demand of service tax, if any could have been only under GTA service on Jhakodia minerals under reverse charge. 10. Revenue's attempt to charge service tax on the profit ca....