2025 (11) TMI 1555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oposed for the period April 2006 to March 2011 on the ground that Service Tax is leviable under reverse charge(RCM). The appellant had filed reply to the SCN and had contested the demands on facts, merits and limitation. Learned Commissioner, without considering the submissions made by the appellant, the passed order vide OIO dated 13.05.2014 confirming the demand as under: (i) I confirm the demand for an amount of Rs. 34,31,662/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Two only) towards Service Tax (including Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess), under the category of "Goods Transport Agency Service", for the period October, 2006 to March, 2011 under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 against M/s Mars International India Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad; The rest of demand amounting to Rs. 25,47,073/- is hereby dropped. (ii)I confirm the demand for an amount of Rs. 2,13,04,862/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirteen Lakhs Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Two only) towards Service Tax (including Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess), under the category of "Management or Business Consultant Service", for the period October,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y them for delivering products, discounts. The distributors and C&F agents take reimbursement of local freight (rickshaw) from the appellant. The appellant do not take any services from Goods Transport Agency (GTA), and no consignment note is issued by any GTA to the Appellant. Therefore, no Service tax is leviable under Section 65 (105)(zzp) of the Act. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant is not the payer of the freight, and therefore Rule 2 (1) (d) (v) is not applicable. The distributor and C&F agents are paying the freight themselves and thereafter claiming reimbursements from the appellant. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sells products to the Distributors and C&F agents are consignment agents, who provide services on their own account to the appellant. Out of various charges like margins, schemes, damages, freight is also recovered by them. Hence the appellant do not avail the services from the GTAs. 9. Appellant relied on the following decisions: (i) Rajalakshmi Paper Mills Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE [2011 (22) S.T.R. 635 (Tri-Chennai)] (ii) Sumangalam Suitings Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE [2010 (19) S.T.R.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Goods Transport Agency service is concerned, since no service has been availed through Goods Transport Agency and no consignment has been issued, in such a conditions, considering the legal provisions, no Service Tax is payable. Section 65(105) (zzp) defines taxable service as any service provided or to be provided to any person, by a Goods Transport Agency, in relation to transport of goods by road in goods carriage Section 65b (26) defines GTA "Goods Transport Agency" means any person should provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issue consignment note, by whatever name called. There is no any consignment note. Since appellant is not the payer of the freight, the distributor and C&F agents are paying the freight themselves. The appellant do not avail the services from the GTA. The Coordinate Bench Chennai in the case of Rajalakshmi Paper Mills Pvt Ltd., supra, held that "Consignment agent paying freight to the transporters and deducting the freight from the total amount received from ultimate buyers. It is not established that consignment agents have paid the freight amounts on behalf of appellants. Consignment agents squarely fall under the category of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egory of "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency". As per Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in CCE, ST Vs Northern Operating Systems Pvt Ltd., [2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 129 (S.C.)]. However, since this categorization was neither alleged in the SCN, nor it was confirmed in the OIO. Service Tax demand cannot be confirmed under a category which is not proposed in the Show Cause Notice. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on following decisions: (i) Prashanh Sai Builders Vs Commissioner of Central Tax [2024 (12) TMI 946 - CESTAT Hyderabad] (ii) Raghava Estates & Properties Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise [2024 (8) TMI 1336 - CESTAT Hyderabad] (iii) ST Electricals Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise [2019 (20) G.S.T/L. 273 (Tri-Mumbai)] (iv) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs ST Electrical pvt Ltd., [(2024) 16 Centax 385 (S.C.)] (v) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Ballapur Industries Ltd., [2007 (215) E.L.T. 489 (S.C.)] (vi) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Mahakoshal Beverages Pvt Ltd., [2014 (33) S.T.R. 616 (Kar.)] (vii) Radiowani Vs CST [2019 (21) G.S.T.L. 157 (Tri-Mumbai)] (viii) H.P. Singh Chanda V....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the impugned order. Therefore, the services are not taxable under Section 65 (105) (za) of the Finance Act. 21. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments in this regard: (i) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., [2015 (40) S.T.R. 289 (Tri-Mumbai)] (ii) Administrative Staff College of India Vs Commissioner of Central Excise [2008 (8) TMI 194 - CESTAT, Banglore] (iii) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2018 (5) TMI 216 - CESTAT Chandigarh] 22. Learned Counsel for the appellant's submits that the research and development expenditure was incurred pursuant to a cost-sharing arrangement among group entities. Under this agreement, there is no service provider-service recipient relationship, and therefore there should not be any Service Tax. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on following judgment. (i) Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., Vs CCE [2016 (45) S.T.R. 489 (S.C.)] (ii) Reliance ADA 'Group Pvt Ltd., Vs CST [2016(43) S.T.R. 372 (Tri-Mumbai)] (iii) HT Media Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Service Tax [2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 364 (Tri-Del.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....distributors. When there was no field in the returns, it could not be the case of suppression on appellant's part. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Reliance Industries Ltd., [(2023) 8 Centax 96 (S.C.)]. 29. Principal Bench CESTAT Delhi in the case of G.D Goenka Pvt Ltd., Vs CCGST [2023-TIOL-782-CESTAT-DEL.], had clearly stated the reasons for which extended period of limitation was not invokable, namely "Difference of opinion between assessee and Revenue could not be a case of suppression by the assessee, the mere existence of self-assessment regime does not put any demand into the bracket of 'suppression', if that was the case, then the provisions regarding suppression of facts would be rendered otiose, the appellant cannot be faulted for not disclosing anything which it is not required to disclose and the assessee can only self-assess as per his understanding. Once the assessee self assessee, it is department's responsibility to scrutinize the returns." The appellant was of the bona fide belief that no Service Tax was leviable on the above. Therefore, extended period of limitation should not be invoked. 30. Appell....