TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1074
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest and penalties, as confirmed vide the Order-in-Original No. DC/ST/BLS/59/2022 dated 25.05.2022 have been upheld. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Dipti Ranjan Mohanty, At-Flat Padhuanpada, F.M. College Road, Balasore, Odisha - 756 001 (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant") is a sole proprietorship concern engaged in providing transportation services by road. The appellant owns commercial vehicles and provides transportation services to various entities without issuing consignment notes. 2.1. During the Financial Year 2014-15, the appellant had provided transportation services exclusively to M/s. Emami Paper Mills Ltd. (a body corporate) through M/s. Coalsale Company Limited as an intermediary. The total amount receiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,85,064/- (including cess) under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 and penalties under Sections 77 and 78. 4.1. During adjudication, the Order-in-Original bearing No. DC/ST/BLS/59/2022 dated 25.05.2022 was issued confirming the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 23,85,064/- (inclusive of cess) along with interest and penalties thereon. 4.2. The above adjudication order was challenged by the appellant herein before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar, whereafter vide the impugned order dated 07.11.2023, the Order-in-Original dated 25.05.2022 came to be upheld. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has prayed for setting aside the demands confirmed against them, which have been upheld by way of the impugned order. 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 8. Heard both sides and perused the documents placed on record. 9. I find that in this case, the appellant, which is a sole proprietorship concern, has engaged in the activity of transportation of various materials to various destinations by road using its own truck. Further, it is also a fact borne on record that no consignment notes were issued by the appellant in relation to the above activity undertaken by them. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant falls outside the purview of "Goods Transport Agency". Accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces, it has been held as under: - "6. In this case, it is a fact that the Appellant is a proprietorship concern with a single truck, providing transportation services without issuing consignment notes. Thus, I observe that the appellant cannot be classified as a Goods Transport Agency. Therefore, I find that the services provided by the Appellant fall squarely within the Negative List and hence the said activity is not taxable. The relevant provisions are reproduced here-in-below for ease of reference: "66D. The negative list shall comprise of the following services, namely: --- (p) services by way of transportation of goods- (i) by road except the services of- (A) a goods transportation agency; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riage of- (b) goods, where gross amount charged for the transportation of goods on a consignment transported in a single carriage does not exceed one thousand five hundred rupees" 6.3.1. Since the individual consignment values, as admitted in the Order-in-Appeal itself, are Rs. 750/- and Rs. 1400/-, which are below the exemption limit of Rs. 1500/-, I hold that no service tax is payable on these services. 7. Accordingly, I hold that the demands of service tax confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable and hence I set aside the same. Since the demand of service tax is not sustained, the question of demanding interest or imposing penalty does not arise. 8. In view of the above discussion, I set asid....