TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es - Held that: - appellant are not apparently covered by any one of the 7 categories mentioned under N/N. 35/2004-ST. Further, the appellants were consignees of goods (vehicles). M/s. Maruti being a consignor have undertaken the transport using GTA and paid freight on such transport. The appellant’s assertions on these facts are relevant to decide their liability under GTA service - demand set aside. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - ST/56812/2013-CU[DB] - ST/A/58140/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 21-11-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Batra, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jain, D.R. ORDER Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been discharged by M/s. Maruti as consignor of the goods. The original authority also imposed penalties of equivalent amount under Section 78 and further penalties under section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted on the following lines:- (a) They were engaged in sales of vehicles as well as provision of service. They have submitted full details of input services and categorized the same into 3 types, namely, (a) Credit available on input services exclusively used for taxable output services. (b) Listed input services which are eligible for credit in terms of Rule 6 (5) and (c) Services which are common to their trading as well as service activity. 3. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttributable to dutiable output service. Further, even to arrive at proportionate credit eligible under CCR, 2004, detailed split up figures are required with supporting documents. He supported the findings of the original authority on GTA service tax liability. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 7. On the first issue we note that the original authority has denied the credit on all the input services on the ground that the entire services on which credits have been availed by the appellant get exhausted for sale of vehicles only, which is outside the purview of output service. Further, he inferred that the taxable value of output services comes to only 2 to 3 % of total turn over of the appellant during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant s assertions on these facts are relevant to decide their liability under GTA service. We note that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the face of these facts recorded. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order with reference to GTA service. 9. In view of the above discussion and analysis, the entitlement of the appellant with reference to various input services credit requires re-examination by the original authority. The appellants are not liable to pay service tax under GTA services. The impugned order is set aside and for re-determining the eligibility of input services for credit, the matter is remanded back to the original authority. [Dictated and pronounced in the open Court] - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
