TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are pleading for fulfillment of these conditions. As such, there is no justification to include such actual reimbursable expenditure in the taxable value at the hands of the appellants. Liability of service tax - GTA Service for goods transported by the principal to the premises managed by the appellant - Held that: - the freight is paid by PEIL through their agent (i.e., appellants) for transportation of such goods. In such a situation, it is PEIL, who is liable to pay the freight, is apparently liable to pay service tax. The appellants cannot be considered as a ‘Consignor' or ‘Consignee' of the goods as they are acting only as an agent in the transaction of PEIL, who are manufacturing and selling the goods. In such a situation, prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of providing C F Agents Service; (b) Liability to pay service tax under GTA Service for goods transported by the principal to the premises managed by the appellant; and (c) Delayed payment of service tax for the month of Nov. '07- Dec.'07 will amount to short-payment of service tax with intention for evasion. 2. The original authority held against the appellants to confirm the demands raised in the show-cause notice dated 26.03.2008. He confirmed service tax demand for ₹ 7,68,617/- and ₹ 43,33,967/- on these disputes and also imposed penalty of ₹ 52,00,000/- under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no tax liability on the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the fact as the payment of tax was discharged later in Jan. '08, Interest liability, if any, is to be borne by the appellant. Delay in payment of service tax itself will not amount to evasion of tax. The statutory return for the impugned duty is to be filed only in Apr. '08. As such, he is contesting the finding of the impugned order that the appellants have not paid tax, inviting penal consequences. 6. Learned Authorised Representative contested the appeal. He submitted that on GTA Service that 'Consignor' or 'Consignee' is not defined in the law and in the context of GTA, Consignor' means a person, who dispatches goods to another through Goods Transport Agency and Consignee' means a person to whom g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Amit Sales Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I reported in 2017 (47) S.T.R. 156 (Tri. -Del.). The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs M/s. Sangamitra Services Agency reported in 2014 (33) S. T.R. 137 (Mad). He also referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Inter-continental Consultants Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.). As such, we find no merit in the finding of the original authority's order recording liability of the appellants on such reimbursable expenditure. 9. Regarding the liability of appellants for service tax under GTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants in the present case. 10. Regarding delay in payment of service tax by two months, we note that the appellants paid the full amount in the month of Jan.'08. This amount should have been discharged in the first week of either Dec. '07 or Jan. '08. There is a delay of few weeks in discharging service tax. This delay by itself will not sustain the allegation of evasion of duty. There is no misrepresentation or suppression by the appellants as they have not filed any statutory return covering this period, as the same is due only in Apr.'08. Delay in payment of service tax beyond the period as mentioned in Service Tax Rules, 1994 will attract interest. In the absence of any intentional violation, penalty under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
