TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of CCE & C, Nashik Vs. S.Z. Dhanwate Engineering Works [2016 (1) TMI 676 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that Central Government had retrospectively exempted all the services rendered to the transmission and distribution of electricity provided for the period 26.02.2010 upto 21.06.2010 - the service tax is not liable in the instant case. Cargo handling services - for the period October 2005 to May 2007 - Board’s Circular No.104/7/2008 dated 06.08.2008 - Held that: - the appellant is not providing Cargo Handling Service but only GTA service. The recipient is already paying the tax. Therefore there cannot be any liability on Cargo Handling Services. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/25256/2013 - A/3056 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25,57,446/- 2. M/s Pioneer Power corporation Ltd. All materials supplied by Client CICS, without any abatement Period 2005-06 2006-07 Rs.4,35,69,257/- 3. M/s Om Power corporation Ltd. Materials in the scope of the appellant CICS, with abatement Period 2009-10 Rs.11,80,010/- Total Rs.4,73,08,713/- 4. Department also demanded service tax of ₹ 71,56,734/- from the appellant on CHS, allegedly provided to M/s. Penna Cements. 5. With this background heard Sh. G. Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service receiver, which was not being levied in accordance with the said practice, shall not be required to be paid in respect of the said taxable service relating to transmissions and distribution of electricity during the aforesaid period. 7. The Tribunal in the case of CCE C, Nashik Vs. S.Z. Dhanwate Engineering Works [2016-TIOL-108-CESTATE-MUM] dated 04.12.2015 has clarified above notification by mentioning as follows: 3. It is his submission that while disposing the appeal filed by the assessee in respect of the remission of service tax under manpower recruitment and supply agency service for recruiting and supply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in P. Ashok Kumar Vs. CCE ST, Guntur vide Final Order No.A/30745/2016 dated 22.08.2016 of CESTAT, Hyderabad and Shri Ganesh Enterprises Vs CC ST, Hyderabad-III in [2014 (35) STR 348 (Tri-Bang)]. By following the ratio laid down by the Tribunal supra, we are of the view that the service tax is not liable in the instant case. 8. Another issue in the present appeal is pertaining to the demand of service tax under cargo handling services of ₹ 71,56,734/- for the period October 2005 to May 2007, under the cargo handling service. The appellant is providing the services for transportation of the cement. The department has demanded the service tax under the cargo handling services. Being aggrieved, the appellant has file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rincipal service, namely, the transportation of goods by road. The contention that a single composite service should not be broken into its components and classified as separate services is a well-accepted principle of classification. As clarified earlier vide F.No.334/4/2006-TRU dated 28.2.2006 (para 3.2 and 3.3) and F.No.334 1/2008-TRU dated 29.2.2008 (para 3.2. and 3.3.), a composite service, even if it consists of more than one service, should be treated as a single service base on the main or principal service and accordingly classified. While taking a view, principle is to identify the essential features of the transaction. The method of invoicing does not alter the single composite nature of the service and classification in such cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat this type of activity fails under category of GTA. (i) CCE, Raipur Vs Drolia Electrosteels (P) Ltd., [2016 (43) STR 261 (Tri.-Del) (ii) M/s. R K Transport Company Vs. CCE, Raipur [2012-TIOL-290-CESTAT-DEL] and (iii) M/s. Arjuna Carriers Pvt. Ltd., [2016 (41) STR 632 (Tri-Del)] From the above, it is clear that the appellant is not providing Cargo Handling Service but only GTA service. The recipient is already paying the tax. Therefore there cannot be any liability on Cargo Handling Services. 10. In view above, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. Stay application also disposed of. (Order dictated pronounced in open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
