2025 (11) TMI 843

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... heard together and are being disposed by this order. 2. Heard Shri G. Natarajan, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Shri M. Selvakumar, Ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Respondent. 3. These Appeals assail the liability of the Appellant/Transport Agent to Service tax under many categories. In Service Tax Appeal No. 41175 of 2016 the demand has been confirmed vide the impugned Order-in-Original as below:- S. No. Service Category and Period Amount of Service Tax confirmed Remarks 1 Port Service Nov 2010 to Feb 2011 Rs.86,92,724 Admitted. Paid along with interest. Appropriated in OIO. Only penalty is being contested. 2 Renting of Immovable property 200910 & 2010-11 Rs.20,625 3 GTA service March 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... who pay or are liable to pay the freight, as per the prevailing provisions noticed supra, then the appellant as a service provider of GTA is under no obligation to pay service tax as the onus to discharge the service tax payment has shifted to the respective consignor or consignee who is liable to pay the freight and are the recipient of the services of GTA provided by the appellant. 16. Be that as it may, it is incontrovertible that the appellant's stand that its customers are liable to discharge the service tax on the services of GTA provided by the appellant stands validated by the customers of the appellant, who themselves have addressed DGCEI directly and communicated that they have discharged the service tax liability in res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant has not proved that the service tax has been paid by the recipients. When the position in law as emanating from the discussions above is that the onus of discharging the service tax on GTA services received itself, was on the customers of the appellant, then such a confirmation of demand as has been made in the instant case, cannot be sustained and the demand on GTA services to the extent of the amounts stated as disputed in this appeal by the counsel for the appellant, from the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is set aside. 5. In view of the above ratio, we do not find any merits in the impugned orders and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside which we hereby do. 6. Thus, the Appeal No.ST/41174/201....