TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 638
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Finance Act, 1994, was also imposed on the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant is a partnership firm which, during FY 2014-15, transported LPG cylinders and petroleum products for M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ('IOCL') by road in its own trucks, under IOCL work orders dated 31.05.2013, 08.07.2013 and 10.11.2014. Freight was fixed per type of cylinder or per KL and per KL per km, and the bills were raised by IOCL itself, showing the vehicle number, quantity, acknowledged quantity and short amount. IOCL certified that it paid Service tax thereon under reverse charge. These documents are recorded in the impugned Order. 2.1 On the basis of CBDT data, Show Cause Notice dated 08.11.2019 was issued demanding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic trucks which could not be used for other works or diverted during the contract period, the Appellant provided "rental service" to IOCL and not transportation servic; and - Service tax of Rs.7,27,781/- is recoverable under Section 73(1) with interest, and penalty of Rs. 7,27,781/- is imposable under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.5 Being aggrieved by the impugned Order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned Order has confirmed the demand on a new ground of "rental service", beyond the SCN and the Department's appeal. It is submitted that the Department's appeal only alleged that Rs. 58,88,196/- was received from sources other than IOCL. The Commissioner (Appeals) framed thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng authority rightly so held. She further submits that the Department itself accepted Rs.14,59,913/-, received under the same work orders, as covered by the Notification; treating the balance as rental is self-contradictory. As IOCL admittedly paid the tax under reverse charge, the demand amounts to double taxation. In this regard, she relies on the following case laws : (i) Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram v. M/s. Adani Logistics Ltd. 2026 (3) TMI 437 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH ; (ii) Mr. Sitaram Jaggnath Prasad Sihotia v. Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & CGST, Jaipur 2024 (2) TMI 1252 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ; (iii) Angiplast Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fide belief that IOCL was liable under reverse charge was upheld by the adjudicating authority; IOCL in fact paid the tax. There was no suppression with intent to evade, and the demand is time-barred. In support, she relies on the following decisions : (i) M/s. S.K. Logitech Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh 2026 (8) TMI 332 - CESTAT KOLKATA ; (ii) Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (supra). She therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside and the appeal be allowed with consequential benefits. 4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue has justified the impugned order. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that the facts are not in dispute that the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transportation through it cannot be treated as GTA service and would, therefore, squarely fall under the exemption, which reads as under: "Section 66D. Negative list of services - The negative list shall comprise of the following services, namely:- (p) services by way of transportation of goods- (i) by road except the services of - (A) a goods transportation agency; or (B) a courier agency." 12. In the present case, I find that it is an undisputed position that the appellant had not issued any consignment notes by whatever name and hence in view of the law laid down by the series of decisions, no service tax liability can be imposed. 13. I, therefore, hold that the demand propo....