9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Notification No. 36/2004-ST dated 31.12.2004 read with Rule 3(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 2. Shri Mrugesh G. Pandya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in the present case, the transportation of effluent is involved, which is neither sold nor saleable in the market therefore, the transportation of goods which is other than goods defined in the Sale of Goods Act, cannot be taxed under Goods Transport Agency service. In support, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- (a) Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited vs. CCE - 2015 (37) STR 1076 (Tri. Ahmd.) (b) Effluent Channel Project Limited, Vide Order No. A/12104/2018 dated 09.10.2018. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led" As per the combined reading of both the definitions given above, it is clear that only for such transportation which is for transport of goods defined under Section 65(50), will be covered under the service of Goods Transport Agency. In the present case, the transport of goods is in respect of effluent which is neither sold nor saleable in the market therefore, the same is not qualify as goods defined under Section 65(50). Accordingly, the transportation of effluent will not fall under the Goods Transport Agency service. This issue has been considered in various judgments as below:- (a) In the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited (supra) the Tribunal passed the following order:- "This appeal has been filed by appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2004 (178) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.)]. 2.1 It was also the case of the ld. Advocate that the demand is clearly time-barred in view of the correspondence exchanged between the appellant and the Department as brought out in Para 9(f) of the grounds of appeal. 3. Shri G.P. Thomas (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that under the Service Tax law it is not necessary that an activity should be necessarily in relation to goods bought and sold in the market. Ld. AR thus defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether a disposal facility provided by the appellant to M/s. Heavy Water Projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in Clause (7) of Section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. As per the provisions of Section 2(7) of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 the goods has to be a category of 'movable property'. Movable property in general trade parlance is considered as a property in goods which can fetch certain price. In the present facts and circumstances of the case the effluent discharge facility is for disposal of a waste which is not being purchased by any person but is only being disposed of by utilizing the services of the appellant. As the relevant facilities/services of transportation provided by appellant are not for the 'goods' as defined in Section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the same cannot be considered as a service provided for transportation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of Tribunal. The said order has also been accepted by Revenue. Ld. AR realise on the impugned order. He stated that even if effluents do not have any commercial value. The do not cease to be goods. 2. We have gone through the revival submissions, we find that the issue before us is if the service provided by the appellant is a taxable service. The prime contention of the appellant is that Industrial Effluent transported by them are not goods and therefore no service Tax can be charged under the head of "Transportation of Goods other than Water through pipeline or other conduit". We find that the decision of Tribunal in case of GSFC (Supra) examines the identical issue hold in favour of appellant. The said decision has not been chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds on behalf of the client. In the case in hand, the same analogy will apply inasmuch appellant is treating waste received from Apte Organics for which they get paid. We find strong force in the submissions made by the learned counsel that the ratio of the Tribunal's following decisions will apply in the case in hand : (a) Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 622 (b) Globe Enviro Care Ltd. - 2011 (21) S.T.R. 241 (c) Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. - 2014 (36) S.T.R. 955 5. It is also to be noted and is a common knowledge that disposal of waste water in the common effluent treatment plant of Maharashtra pollution control board, needs to adhere specifications acceptable for such disposal, which are achieved by the treatment u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
