TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion cost of sugarcane to their factory. After reducing the amount paid, appellant settled balance bill to the farmer. We also find that the learned departmental representative putting on record a letter received also includes a bill settled by the appellant wherein it is indicated that appellant had deducted the transportation cost and paid the same to the transporter. On this factual matrix in this case, we have to hold that appellant need not pay Service Tax on the amount of transportation charges. If the appellant had borne and paid transportation charges that would have been liable to pay Service Tax liability under Reverse Charges Mechanism as per the provision of Finance Act, 1994 and Rules made there under. Again there are no provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugar factory has to discharge the Service Tax liability under Reverse Charge Mechanism for the transport charges paid, while it is the case of the appellant that transportation of sugarcane is done by the farmers as per the agreement and the said amount paid by the appellant as freight inward/transportation charges are recovered from individual farmers. 3. Learned Counsel would submit that they are contesting the issue on merits as well as on limitation. She would submits that appellant being a sugar factory is required to procure the sugarcane from a designated area as per the tri-partite agreement enforced by Government of Maharashtra which mandates the farmers to deliver the sugarcane in the cane yard of the factory and farmers being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (v) Caps Prints - 2013 (30) STR 426 (T) (vi) Kanaka Durga - 2009 (15) STR 399 (T) (vii) Bellary Iron 2010 (18) STR 406 (T) It is also alternate submission that even if any Service Tax liability arises; the same will be registered to 25% of the total tax liability as per Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. It is her further submission that there was no deliberate withholding of information with intent to evade tax, hence show-cause notice dated 22.10.2010 is barred by limitation as in the show-cause notice, demand is raised for the period 2005-06 and 2006-07. 4. Learned departmental representative on the other hand would submit that the first appellate authority has correctly held that the amounts paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount paid, appellant settled balance bill to the farmer. We also find that the learned departmental representative putting on record a letter received also includes a bill settled by the appellant wherein it is indicated that appellant had deducted the transportation cost and paid the same to the transporter. On this factual matrix in this case, we have to hold that appellant need not pay Service Tax on the amount of transportation charges. If the appellant had borne and paid transportation charges that would have been liable to pay Service Tax liability under Reverse Charges Mechanism as per the provision of Finance Act, 1994 and Rules made there under. Again there are no provisions for appellant to pay tax on deducted amount, from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
