TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.07.2014. Learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Central Excise Duty under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter called Excise Act) with interest under section 11AA and imposed penalty under section 11AC as proposed in Show Cause Notice dated 07.11.2013. 2. We had heard both sides and dismissed the appeal with detailed order to follow. Thereafter, we noticed that in this Excise Appeal and in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, there was also a demand of a small amount of service tax of Rs. 9,410/- on reverse charge basis under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter called as the Finance Act) with interest under section 75 of the Finance Act and penalties imposed under section 77 and 78 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as per Serial No. 21 (C) of Notification No. 25/2013 ST d/20.06.2012). According to the department the appellant was liable to service tax under reverse charge on this amount as a recipient of 'Goods Transport Agency' service. According to the appellant, these amounts were paid to individual truck operators and not to 'Goods Transport Agencies' and hence the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under reverse charge on this amount. 5. Two Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellant, the first one by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur, for the period of 2013-14 and the second one by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur, for the period of 2013-14. In the Show Cause Notices it has been alleged that the finished....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.84362900 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 attracting 'Nil' rate of duty and the said goods have been wrongly classified in the Show Cause Notices issued by them and therefore no liability is cast upon them to pay any Central Excise duty and the said goods. 7. With regard to the proposal to demand Service Tax from them on the freight charges paid by them, appellants submitted that they availed the services of private truck operators and paid them the freight charges and the services provided by the private truck operators do not fall under the definition of GTA. 8. The Commissioner did not accept the submissions of the appellant and confirmed demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 21,01,313/- for the period from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax on freight charges under the definition of GTA. 12. Learned AR for the Respondent submits that G.I Wire Welded Mesh are not classifiable under 84.36 (as poultry keeping machinery) but under heading 73.14 (as wire mesh). Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in the case of Azra Poultry Equipments Vs Union of India [2015 (323) E.L.T. 88 (Del)] held that wire mesh admittedly made of iron and steel, can be sold to persons other than poultry farmers also. Impugned goods are thus of general nature, use in poultry machinery being only one such use but not exclusive use Impugned goods only iron cages without being equipped with automatic devices not eligible to be covered under term 'poultry keeping machinery'. Classification of impugned goods not und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as under: 4B. Issue of consignment note "Any goods transport agency which provides service in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage shall issue a consignment note to the recipient of services: PROVIDED that where any taxable service in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage is wholly exempted under section 93 of the Act, the goods transport agency shall not be required to issue the consignment note." 16. It is a well settled legal position that transportation service provided by individual truck operators is not Goods Transport Agency Service and no service tax is payable on such payments. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant had obtained the servi....