Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 70 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHInterpretation of statute - transportation of goods - whether sale is not mandatory in relation to the word “goods” for purpose of levy of service tax? - applicability of the concept of marketability to the instant case - HELD THAT:- The contention cannot be agreed upon that the said components are not goods as they are not sold ordinarily. This Tribunal in M/S. DIESEL LOCO MODERNIZATION WORKS VERSUS CCE, CHANDIGARH [2011 (3) TMI 161 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] had categorically held that Notification No.29/2008-ST dated 26.06.2008 pleaded by the appellant in support is not applicable to GTA Services which is covered by sub-Clause (zzp) of Clause 105 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 whereas the exemption under the said Notification is meant for sub-clause (zzzz) of Clause 105 of Section 65 of the Act ibid. Undoubtedly, the component manufactured and transported by the appellant are covered within the definition of “Goods” under the Finance Act, 1994 being movable property and satisfying the definition of the term under Section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Also the unit has been registered as a factory under the Factories Act. The appellants are covered within the definition of term „other persons‟, required to pay service tax as recipient of GTA Services under Rule 2(1)(v)(a) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. There being no distinction in law between a private factory or a government body using GTA Services. No exemption is therefore admissible to the appellant either as a Government factory or as a unit of the Ministry of Railways. The tax demand along with interest as confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority is clearly payable by the appellant. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the appellant belonging to the Ministry of Railways enabling the discharge of sovereign functions, as pointed out by the learned Advocate, this is a fit case for waiver of any penal liability imposed. The appeals are, therefore, disposed off upholding the tax demand and interest while setting aside the penal liabilities.
|