TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e i.e. it was the consignor or consignee who paid freight for transport of coal. This adds to the credence to the contention of the respondent that the freight expenses shown in the balance sheet of the respondent represented the actual amount paid for hiring trucks. Mere hiring of trucks by a Goods Transport Agency does not constitute GTA service. We find that the invoices have been issued by M/s Coal Feeders which show names of the customers who purchased coal and to whom coal was consigned. Thus, M/s Coal Feeder became the provider of GTA service and as these invoices clearly mentioned ‘freight to be paid by the consignee’, the freight was rightly paid by the consignee along with service tax as has been confirmed in respect of 62 out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e but did not pay service tax thereon. The adjudicating authority observed that the service tax has been demanded on the freight expenses of appellants subsidiary firm M/s Coal Feeder Pvt. Ltd. which forms part of profit and loss account of noticees company. Thus for the purpose of tax liability the respondent and M/s Coal Feeder Pvt. Ltd. have been treated as a single entity. The Commissioner also noted that, in case M/s Coal Feeder the Delivery Orders were issued in the name of different buyers of coal and that it was clear that the respondent s subsidiary firm (M/s Coal Feeder) on whose transport expenses, service tax has been demanded is in fact, the Goods Transport Agency which arranged transportation of coal upto the factories of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransportation service cannot be passed on by the respondent to the buyers of coal. (v) Service tax on GTA service has not been discharged by all the buyers of coal. (vi) When the demand has been confirmed against the respondent in respect of such buyers of coal from which certificate of payment of service tax could not be obtained, it shows that the liability to pay service tax was that of the respondent. 4. In its cross-objection the respondent has contended that : (a) Revenue has not disputed the payment of service tax on GTA by various customers who were consignees and paid freight. (b) The only reason for confirmation of demand in respect of seven consignees is that certificate of payment of service tax by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect thereof has not been contested by Revenue. Only for a small portion of demand (Rs. 238511.73) in respect of 7 customers, such confirmation could not be obtained and the Commissioner confirmed that much demand against the respondent which chose not to contest the same as it was a small amount but that cannot be a legal ground to assert that the respondent was liable to pay service tax under GTA service. The onus is on Revenue to establish that the respondent was liable to pay service tax under GTA service. We find that Revenue has not produced any consignment notes showing respondent as recipient of GTA service i.e. it was the consignor or consignee who paid freight for transport of coal. This adds to the credence to the contention of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
