Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 722 - CESTAT HYDERABADBenefit of exemption notification No. 34/2004-ST dt.03.12.2004 - GTA services - Exemption based on gross amount charged on consignment transported in goods carriage - HELD THAT:- This exemption is available only in cases where the gross amount charged for consignments transported in goods carriage does not exceed ₹ 1,500/- or gross amount on individual consignment transported in goods carriage does not exceed ₹ 750/- - in the present case, the appellant has not put forth any evidence to show that transportation charges have fallen below the threshold limits which would have entitled them to the benefit of exemption notification - benefit of notification cannot be extended. Benefit of N/N. 41/2007-ST dt.06.10.2007 - services used for export of goods from the whole of service tax leviable thereon - HELD THAT:- The words used are NOT “used in relation to export of goods”. In this case, GTA services were availed for transporting goods from their Kodur unit to Chennai. Thereafter, the Chennai unit in turn exported the goods. While this transportation may be in relation to export of goods, there is no sufficient evidence to show that this transportation is actually for export of goods - Secondly, the exemption notification does not provide the exemption straightaway but is subject to certain conditions and available by way of refund of service tax paid on the specified services used for export of goods. Also, this exemption is available by way of refund and not at the source. This does not automatically allow the appellant to NOT pay service tax which they were liable to pay - benefit of notification cannot be extended. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant was fully aware of their liability to pay service tax on GTA services and had indeed obtained registration for the same services received in their Chennai unit but had not done so, in respect of the Kodur unit. Therefore, the appellant cannot plead ignorance about their liability to pay service tax and take registration and follow the appropriate procedures - the extended period of limitation has been correctly invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|