AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Binu Tamta, J
The present appeals have been filed challenging the order-in-appeal No.1049-1052(CRM)ST/JDR/2018 dated 20.09.2018 holding that the appellants are liable to pay service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism, (RCM) under Goods Transport Agency ‘GTA’. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of marble slab and tiles for which they obtain marble blocks from various mines and also engage individual transporters and truck owners for transportation of marble blocks. Show cause notices dated 24.07.2017 were issued for the period April, 2015 to March, 2016 proposing demand of service tax under the category of ‘GTA’ services, which has been affirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority and also by the appellate authority by the impugned order.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in their own case in M/s. Vaishnav Marbles Private Limited & Ors. Vs. CCE, F.O.No.FO/ST/A/55719-55721/2024-ST (DB) dated 30.04.2024, which covered the earlier period in dispute and also referred to the various decisions of the Coordinate Benches, especially the recent decision of Ahmedabad Bench in Chartered Logistics Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2024 (16 Centax 473 (T-Ahmd.) dated 19.07.2023, which dealt with the issue under consideration with reference to the post negative era and referring to the provisions of Section 66D (p)(i) including in the negative list services by way of transportation of goods by road except the services of a goods transport agency and Section 65B(26) defining ‘Goods Transport Agency’ observed as under:
“6.5 Accordingly, a person can be said to be Goods Transport Agency, if the person provides services in relation to the transportation of goods by road and issues the consignment note. From the above legal position, it clear that not all the person who transport of goods by road are qualified as Goods Transport Agency. To qualify as services of GTA, the GTA should issue necessarily a consignment note then only services provided by the GTA are taxable under Finance Act, 1994. In the present matter it is admitted fact that in case of supply of transportation of goods services to M/s FCPL. Appellant have not issued any consignment notes. M/s FCPL issued consignment notes/LRs to consignee/consignor of goods. In such circumstance Appellant is not qualified under the Goods Transport Agency as per the above definition of GTA. Services of transportation of goods by a person other than GTA are clearly exempt under Section 66D (P)(i)(A) of the Finance Act, 1994. By observing the above legal position we find that the services of appellant is clearly excluded from the taxable services since it is covered in the “Negative List” Entry under Section 66D (p)(i) 1994.”
Accordingly, in the earlier order, where the appellants were also the party, it was observed as under:-
“8. From the aforesaid judgments, the settled principle of law is that even if a person has provided goods transport service but has not issued the consignment note, service tax from that person cannot be recovered under the category of GTA. The case of the appellant is on the same footing as he availed the services of individual transporters and truck owners and in the absence of issuing the consignment note, the appellant cannot be made liable to pay service tax under the category of GTA.”
Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue agrees to the submissions that the matter is squarely covered by the earlier decisions including the order passed in the case of the appellant recently on 30.04.2024.
In that view of the matter, we hold that during the post negative era w.e.f. 01.07.2012 Individual Transporters are not taxable under the provisions of Section 66D(p)(i). The present show cause notice covers the period from April, 2015 to March, 2016 and hence, the appellants are not liable to pay service tax.
We, accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals.
[Order pronounced on 2nd July, 2024]