2026 (5) TMI 1516

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 dated 05.05.2020] dropping the demand as the issue stands decided by the Tribunal that the appellant had been rendering "Goods Transport Service" and not "Supply of Tangible Goods Services" and therefore, the service tax has to be deposited under reverse charge mechanism by the service recipient and no liability arises on the appellant. 2. The case of the Revenue is that M/s. Prem Enterprises [Assessee] is a partnership firm who had deployed special purpose vehicles viz. Transit Mixers [TM] for transportation of RMC and showing the said service activity as transportation of goods by road service (in short GTA); that consignment notes were issued by the assessee to M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd. [Service recipient] so as to make it appear ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing to Rs.1,03,27,464/- on the taxable amount of Rs.8,35,55,539/- received during the period October, 2013 to March, 2015 along with interest under proviso to Section 73(1) read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 [The Act] and also proposed penalty under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 30.09.2019 has confirmed the demand amounting to Rs.1,03,27,464/- along with interest, imposed penalty of equivalent amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 05.05.2020 held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax and set aside the Order-i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... another as per the directions of the service recipient. The relevant paragraphs of the decision are as follows:- "21. This conclusion drawn by the Commissioner is a patently wrong understanding of the conditions of the work order. The appellant did not give on hire the vehicles. Even the subject matter of the "work order is for transportation of Ready Mix Concrete in vehicle/vehicles from our Jaipur 1TD Ready Mix Plant at Jaipur". The contract that has been awarded is also for transportation of Ready Mix Concrete from the plant of the appellant on the terms and conditions mentioned in the work order. Condition No. 1 of the work order is that the appellant shall load RMC in the vehicle and transport the same to the required destina....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....load RMC in the vehicles of the appellant and transport the same to the required destination and unload it. The requirement under the work order that the appellant should have a fleet of vehicles, adequate enough to transport 9000 M3 RMC every month would not mean that the appellant had given the vehicle on hire. The Commissioner was required to examine all the conditions of the work order but the finding is based on an assumption that vehicle was hired for transportation of RMC. 23. The Commissioner also fell into an error in assuming that if a minimum load of 745 cum per month per vehicle is not loaded, then too the appellant would be entitled to payment on this minimum quantity to conclude that in this manner payment would also ....