2026 (4) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant are mine owners and are registered under the category of Transportation of Goods by Road or Goods Transport Agency (GTA) w.e.f. 28.12.2006. On audit of their records during 2009, it was noticed that the appellant has not included an amount of Rs.1,88,28,661/- being the transport charges incurred for export of their finished goods during the period 2007-08 and failed to discharge service tax under the category of GTA service. Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 22.04.2013 demanding service tax of Rs.5,81,806/- on the said taxable value of Rs.1,88,28,661/- for the period 2007-2008 along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sdeclaration, the demand is barred by limitation. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner(Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The short issue involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant are required to pay service tax on reverse charge mechanism basis as per Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 on the cost of transportation incurred for transport of Iron ore fines from their mines to the port of export during the period 2007-08. 7. On going through the show-cause notice and the impugned order, we find that the authorities below have observed that even though the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, which in turn considered by this Tribunal. This Tribunal observed as under:- 5. The core issue, as concurred with by both sides, is the taxability of the consideration paid by the appellant for utilization of lorries for transportation of 'iron ore' from their mines to the port of export at New Mangalore. It is the claim of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the trucks are hired by themselves and the 'iron ore' for export are loaded on to them for carrying to the port of export. He contends that there is no agency function involved as the goods are loaded on vehicles hired by them and, hence, there is no third party involved. He further contends, after ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Fulchand Ajmerai, it was held that - "4. Our decision in Re : Kanaka Durga Oil Products Ltd. has excluded the individual truck owner from the purview of the tax in Section 65(105)(zzp) of Finance Act, 1994. We have perused the definition of "goods transport agency" in Section 65(50b) of Finance Act, 1994 and find that an essential characteristic of provider of the service is the issuance of a consignment note. Revenue has resorted to a circular logic by claiming that Rule 4B of Service Tax Rules, 2004 requires the goods transport agency to issue a consignment note. This, according to us, is a specious line of reasoning as the provider of "goods transport agency" service being determined by issuance of consignment note under the st....