9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent : Shri.R.K. Mishra, A.R. ORDER Per S. K. Mohanty Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of grey fabrics and for the said purpose, imported yarn from Nepal. The supplier of Nepal has raised 2 Nos. of invoices indicating the cost of goods and for other charges including the freight amount for transportation of goods from Nepal to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 SM (Br.) dated 22.09.2016. 3. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Mishra, the ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and examined the records. I find that in an identical case, in the case of Radha Mohan Textiles (supra), this Tribunal has allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant holding that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods and also the transport expenses from Nepal border to their factory premises, which were paid by the appellants. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the finding portion of the impugned order has observed that although initially freight/transportation charges had been paid by the consignors (yarn supplier situated in Nepal) on behalf of the consignees (the appellants), but becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has been produced. Moreover, for determining as to which person is liable to pay service tax on GTA services in accordance with the provisions of Notification No. 35/2004-S.T. issued under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2(1)(d)(v), the question which has to be answered is as to who had engaged the transporter and who was liable to pay freight to the transporter. In this gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pal border to the factory premises of the appellants. Just because the Nepalese suppliers had billed the appellants separately for transportation from Nepal border to factory premises alongwith other expenses, they do not become the agents of the appellants. In view of this, the appellants cannot be treated as recipients of GTA services in terms of Notification No. 35/04-S.T. and hence liable to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
