TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rogen, oxygen, argon, etc. at several locations in different parts of the country. It had factories as well as depots. Where the customers by their orders so stipulated, the appellant engaged transporters for transportation of compressed gas in cylinders on trucks and liquid gas in the appellant's cryogenic tankers mounted on trucks to the customer's premises. The trucks belonged to the transporters. The appellant paid the freight charged by the transporters, paid service tax on such freight on reverse charge basis and took credit of such service tax. The appellant recovered from the customers transportation charges (on equalised basis) under the nomenclature "Delivery charges", accounted for as collection and delivery charges. The delivery....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant and unloading at customer's premises. It was alleged that such charges collected from the customers were more than what the appellant paid to the transporters. After due process, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. Hence, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the delivery charges formed part of the sale price of the goods on which appropriate central sales tax/VAT had been paid; that the appellant had not paid central excise duty on the collection and delivery charges because of Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules which provided that the cost of transportation from the factory up to the place of delivery of the goods shall not form part of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pertains to the demand for the subsequent period October, 2013 to March, 2015. 3.3. In view of the above submissions, he prays that the appeal may be allowed. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterates the detailed findings of the Adjudicating authority. He submits that the verification has revealed that the appellant had been collecting amounts which are higher than the freight charges paid by them; since it is an integrated service of loading, unloading, transporting and delivering of gas to the customers, this is not a mere GTA service, but classifiable as Cargo Handling Service only. Therefore, he justifies the confirmed demands. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the submissions made. 6. Firstly, we tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk at the customers' premises and carriage of the goods from the appellant's premises to the customers' premises was on their account. Thus, the goods under transportation remained the appellant's property and there was no transfer of property in the goods to the customers till such time as the same were delivered to the customers in their storage tank. Therefore, we find that the transfer of property to the customers was indeed only in respect of the quantity delivered as per measurement recorded at their premises. 9.3. It is settled law that service tax and value added tax are mutually exclusive as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner [2008 (9) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.)]. The relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 'Cargo Handling Agency', we observe that the appellant were not a 'Cargo Handling Agency' and did not render any cargo handling service. Section 65(105)(zr) provides for taxation of service provided by a cargo handling agency in relation cargo handling services, which has been defined in section 65(23). The appellant have stressed that they are a manufacturer of gases and not a cargo handling agency. It is clear that the manufactured gas when despatched from the appellant's factory for delivery and sale to its customers is not "freight" or "cargo" in the hands of a "cargo handling agency". Thus, we find that the role of the appellant is only that of a manufacturer, delivering and selling its goods to its customers for the ....