TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1994. - Held that:- The expression “any person” is not defined under the Act. Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act defines “person”, as including any company or association or body of individual whether incorporated or not. The thrust of the definition is that it includes every person engaged in an activity providing service of transport of goods by road. Thus, any commercial or a proprietary concern carrying on the business of Goods Transport would fall under the definition of “Goods Transport, Agency” in Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act. In the absence of any words of restriction, the definition ‘any person’ thus would have application to any concern providing the service. - Decided in favor of revenue. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3079 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. Shri Vijay Anand, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.S. Radhakrishnan for M/s. Hari Radhakrishnan, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The Revenue has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Final Order No. 555 of 2010, dated 14-5-2010 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and contended that in view of the exemption given under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004, no Service Tax was leviable in respect of a full load, if the freight amount was less than ₹ 1,500/-. The assessee also submitted that having regard to the revenue neutrality , by reason of the Service Tax payment having its reflection in Cenvat Credit Account, there could be no demand for interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner rejected the said contentions and thus the levy of interest was confirmed. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on further appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal raising the contention that they were receiving sugarcane transported by the agriculturists from their field to the sugar mill. Based on the scrutiny of the accounts and as pointed out by the internal audit, Service Tax was paid by the assessee in respect of consignment received by them in a single truck involving freight exceeding ₹ 750/-. Placing reliance on the exemption as per Notification No. 34/2004-S.T., the assessee further contended that the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 004, if the gross amount charged on an individual consignment, as explained in the Explanation appended to the Notification, by a goods transport agency by road in a goods carriage does not exceed ₹ 750/- and on multiple consignments, the gross amount charged does not exceed ₹ 1,500/-, then the taxable service is exempted from payment of tax. According to the Revenue, in the assessee s case the freight paid on the individual consignment of goods transported by a goods transport agency by road exceeded ₹ 750/- for transport of sugarcane to the factory. Thus, exemption Notification would not be of any assistance to the assessee. Hence, according to the Revenue, the Tribunal committed a serious error in misconstruing the Notification. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee, however, submitted that considering the fact that the impact of the Notification has not been properly considered by the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal rightly remitted the matter back to the Authority for considering the very liability itself; consequently, no serious objection could be taken to the order passed by the Tribunal. 11. We do not agree with the submission made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 750, in the case of consignments in a goods carriage the exemption is available if the charges did not exceed ₹ 1,500/-. 14. A reading of the Grounds of Appeal before the Tribunal shows that the objection of the assessee on the levy of interest was that there was no suppression on the payment of Service Tax and that the assessee volunteered to make the payment and that in any event in the face of the exemption Notification, there was no liability to pay the interest. In the additional grounds taken, the Tribunal, relied on the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the decision reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 399 (cited supra) on the scope of Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the definition of Goods Transport Agency and the exemption Notification holding that when the transport services were rendered by individual truck/transport operators, the assessee was not liable to suffer the liability. Thus accepting the additional ground raised in the appeal, based on the decision reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 399 (Tribunal Bangalore) (cited supra), the Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to find out whether the transporters were individual or not, so that the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal filed as against the remand order. 21. Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that in the light of the view taken by this Court, the question as regards the relevance of Notification No. 34/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 granting exemption may be considered. 22. The Explanation given in the Notification gives the guidance as to the scope of clause (1) and clause (2) of the Notification. As is evident from the reading of the Explanation, individual consignment means all goods transported by a goods transport agency by road in a goods carriage for a consignee . In contra distinction to this, the first clause, fixing the exemption limit to ₹ 1,500/- is not limited to the consignment to an individual but it refers to consignment relatable to more than one consignee. In other words, while clause (1) is with reference to consignments transported in a goods carriage to different consignees, Clause (2) as seen from the Explanation refers to transport of goods by a goods transport agency by road in a goods carriage for a consignee . Thus, by making two classifications, exemption Notification limits its operation based on the consignee, the charges and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
