9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 74 - AT - Service TaxGTA Services - liability of service recipient whereas transporter has deposited the service tax - extended period of limitation - appellants have produced one-to-one entry of service tax claim of GTA services in GRs and ST deposited in Govt. accounted by the transport agency - Held that - no justification in the view of Commissioner (Appeals) that in as much as it was the assessee who was required to pay the service tax as GTA recipient, the same is required to be confirmed even though the transporters have deposited the same. Transporters were charging S.T from the appellants in as much as the same stands reflected in the consignment notes issued by them. As the appellants were paying the service tax to the transporters for further deposit with the Govt., they cannot be held guilty of any mala fide suppression to invoke the longer period of limitation. The demand having been raised on 01.11.2010 for the period 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010 is barred by limitation, except a few months falling within the limitation. Accordingly, I set aside the demand on the point of limitation and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for quantification of duty falling within the limitation period - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Liability of service tax payment by the appellant as a recipient of GTA services. 2. Dispute regarding the confirmation of service tax demand against the appellant. 3. Challenge against the order of the Dy. Commissioner before the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Applicability of the longer period of limitation and imposition of penalties. Analysis: Issue 1: Liability of service tax payment by the appellant as a recipient of GTA services The appellants, being manufacturers of excisable goods, were availing GTA services, making them liable to pay service tax. The proceedings initiated against them involved a demand of service tax for the GTA services received during a specific period. The appellants argued that they had already paid the service tax to the transporters, as evidenced by consignment notes and invoices. Issue 2: Dispute regarding the confirmation of service tax demand against the appellant The Dy. Commissioner acknowledged the evidence provided by the appellants showing the payment of service tax by the transport agency to the government. However, a portion of the demanded service tax was confirmed against the appellants due to a shortfall in documented evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal. Issue 3: Challenge against the order of the Dy. Commissioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) The appellant contested the Dy. Commissioner's order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the decision on confirming the balance service tax demand. The appellate authority's reasoning was based on the recipient's obligation to pay service tax, despite evidence of payment by the transporters. Issue 4: Applicability of the longer period of limitation and imposition of penalties The appellate tribunal found that the demand raised beyond a certain period was barred by limitation, except for a few months falling within the limitation period. Consequently, the demand was set aside on the point of limitation, and the matter was remanded for quantification within the valid period. The tribunal also overturned the imposition of penalties, citing no justifiable reason for penalizing the appellants. In conclusion, the appellate tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit condition, set aside the demand on the limitation issue, remanded the matter for quantification within the valid period, and revoked the penalties imposed on the appellants.
|
