TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of amount charged correctly. Amount charged does not mean the actual amount payable - claim of the learned counsel that the 3 activities undertaken by them namely handling of fertilizers and handling of the same within the port, transportation from port to outside the port and thereafter bagging activity are 3 independent separate activities, separately charged and separately billed for. That being the position, it cannot be treated as a composite activity at all. Moreover, service tax is payable on GTA service and there is no evidence that service tax has not been paid on GTA service by IPL. In our opinion, transportation activity in this case is a distinct activity since it comes in the middle of handling of cargo within the port and ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bulk fertilizers from the wharf to the ware houses of IPL outside the port under a separate contract. The appellant issues Goods Consignment Notes and charges separate charges for transportation. Service tax as applicable to GTA services has accordingly been paid by IPL under reverse charge. IPL has paid service tax of ₹ 46.55 lakhs during the relevant period. 4. The appellant has also been entrusted with the work of bagging the fertilizers, at the warehouses of IPL outside the port area. As per the contract and work order, the appellant raised invoices for the stevedoring operations and bagging operations. 5. The different services are provided by the applicant as per contracts and these services are charged separately. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that it is not correct to treat all the activities as a composite service. He submitted that separate heads have been fixed for different activities and separate orders have been issued and separate bills are raised. For the differential duty demanded, the service tax has been discharged by Indian Potash Ltd. treating the service as GTA service and rightly so. He relies upon the circular issued by the Board wherein a view was taken that where individual services are separately contracted, provided and charged by the service provider, then the same cannot be treated as a composite service. The CBEC Circular No. B11/1/2002-TRU, dated 01.08.2002 refers. Further he also submitted that the appellant is paying service tax under the category ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bill indicates the amount charged for cargo handling and transportation separately on actual basis (verifiable by documentary evidence), then the tax would be leviable only on the cargo handling charges. I find that the situation contemplated in the Circular is when the bill indicates the amount charged for cargo handling and transportation separately on actual basis. But in the present case the transportation bill was raised as per a pre-determined rate chart and not on actual cost of transportation. Hence, I find that the circular is not relevant to the present case. 8. In this case the appellants are not charging the lump sum amount for both transportation and cargo handling. Separate purchase orders are filed, separate bills are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
