2025 (6) TMI 1509 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of transportation services provided by the appellants to M/s. Ultra Tech from April 2014 to June 2017 - declared service or not - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res-integra and stands covered under the same facts relation to another transporter of Ultratech in the matter of Shripad Concrete Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Surat-I 2023 (8) TMI 707 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD delivered by this Bench (different Constitution) only where it was held that we are of the view that the appellant s service is correctly classifiable under Goods Transport Agency service for which service recipient M/s. Ultratech Cement Limited have discharged the service tax as required under Rule 2(d) of Service Tax Rules 1994 under reverse charge basis. It is found that as has been mentioned by the learned Advocate and is deduced from the finding the matter is very much covered and stands on the same footing as far as factual matrix is concerned appeal is therefore allowable with consequential relief. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT Ahmedabad) addressed a dispute concerning the classification of transportation services provided by the appellants to M/s. Ultra Tech from April 2014 to June 2017. The department contended these services were "declared service" under the negative list tax regime and thus taxable, whereas the appellants argued the services constituted Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services, with Ultra Tech discharging tax under reverse charge.Relying on the precedent set in Shripad Concrete Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Surat-I (2023 (8) TMI 707), the Tribunal noted that transportation of ready-mix concrete (RMC) for Ultra Tech was held to be GTA service, not supply of tangible goods for use. The Tribunal quoted paras 6 and 7 of that judgment, emphasizing that the appellant's service was "correctly classifiable under Goods Transport Agency service" and that tax liability on the recipient under reverse charge was appropriate. The issuance of consignment notes further supported this classification.Given the factual similarity and binding precedent, the Tribunal found no reason to uphold the department's demand and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The impugned orders were set aside accordingly.