TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid on the ground that this was related to prior to 1.1.2005. It was pointed out by learned counsel that this amount was received only after 1.1.2005 and the claim of the appellant was that this was in respect of services rendered prior to 1.1.2005 and therefore, no liability arises is not acceptable. Prima face, the appellant does not have a case in their favour. Moreover, there is nothing left in the matter to decide at final stage. Learned counsel fairly agreed that the appellant is liable to pay service tax and will pay. As far as service tax and interest are concerned, is upheld. Penalties imposed have already been set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ST/21327/2014-DB - Final Order No. 21482/2014 - Dated:- 21-8-2014 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacturer to the appellants depots is an integral function for its further distribution through the PDS system. Without transport, the distribution cannot take place. Hence transportation is integral with distribution and has to be considered as part and parcel of the statutory function of distribution of levy sugar. Therefore the whole function of transporting and distributing the levy sugar becomes a statutory function and so not liable to service tax, in the light of Boards Circular No. 89/7/2006-Service Tax dated 18 December 2006 (copy at page 50 of the P.B.). 2.3. In the appeal under consideration the appellant had however, paid the service tax for the transportation of levy sugar as directed by the departmental officers w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel that prima facie, the appellant does not have a case since the appellant is a Limited Company and they are liable to pay service tax on GTA services and no valid ground other than stating that it is statutory function has been specified. Transportation of sugar by a Limited Company cannot be considered as statutory function. Moreover, the appellant has paid entire amount of tax plus interest and only an amount of ₹ 1,16,670/- is to be paid. This amount was not paid on the ground that this was related to prior to 1.1.2005. It was pointed out by learned counsel that this amount was received only after 1.1.2005 and the claim of the appellant was that this was in respect of services rendered prior to 1.1.2005 and therefore, no liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|