TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te registrations by the department for different activities. There is nothing on record to show that the department has declined to give registration to one of the units holding that both the units are the same and the services rendered by both firms amount to rendition of a single service requiring service tax to be paid accordingly. It is also not in dispute that both the firms have been paying service tax and filing returns as required under the law - the allegation that there was any suppression of facts or wilful misstatement or fraud on behalf of the appellant is unsustainable. Both GTA services and business auxiliary services have separate entries in section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. To allege that services rendered by two diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered with the Central Excise department for providing Goods Transport Agency services (GTA). Both registrants are located in nearby plots in 159 162A, Industrial Estate, Pedagantyada in Visakhapatnam. During audit, the department verified the invoices and ledgers and other accounts of the appellant and came to the conclusion that the appellant is in fact rendering a consolidated service of both processing the goods i.e., loading, unloading, cutting, straightening, bending of iron and steel items for the clients as well as transporting them. Therefore, it is felt by the department that the appellant is engaged in a single service which has the essential characteristics of business auxiliary service and service tax must be discharged as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 but did not impose any penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. There is no departmental appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority in not imposing penalty under section 76 or confirming the demand lower than what was proposed in the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the impugned order the present appeal is filed by the appellant on the following grounds: (i) They are paying service tax for both firms as applicable under the law on their own ascertainment and have been filing ST3 returns. They are also granted independent registrations by the service tax department for the two units engaged in two different activities. At no point of time have t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A service and the abatement should be extended to the charges for such intermediary or ancillary service? Clarification: GTA provides a service in relation to transportation of goods by road which is a single composite service. GTA also issues consignment note. The composite service may include various intermediate and ancillary services provided in relation to the principal service of the road transport of goods. Such intermediate and ancillary services may include services like loading/unloading, packing/unpacking, transhipment, temporary warehousing etc., which are provided in the course of transportation by road. These services are not provided as independent activities but are the means for successful provision of the principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erely because both units are owned by the same individual the services do not get clubbed into a consolidated service. He would submit that as per the statement recorded during investigation itself, they do not undertake same processes for every client. For some clients they only undertake transportation and for some only processing work and for some they undertake both the activities. These activities are not undertaken by the same registrant but are undertaken by two different registrants. Accordingly, each firm bills/invoices the client for the services rendered by it. Merely the owner being the same cannot be a ground to club the two services. The essential character of the services rendered by M/s Raghavendra Processors is that of bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at both firms are owned by the same person and are located in nearby plots. It is undisputed that the two firms have been given separate registrations by the department for different activities. There is nothing on record to show that the department has declined to give registration to one of the units holding that both the units are the same and the services rendered by both firms amount to rendition of a single service requiring service tax to be paid accordingly. It is also not in dispute that both the firms have been paying service tax and filing returns as required under the law. For these reasons, we find the allegation that there was any suppression of facts or wilful misstatement or fraud on behalf of the appellant is unsustainable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
