9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is required the inputs to manufacture the final products and the input procured by the appellant for different modes of transportation and as Goods Transport Agency, has been brought into the service tax net w.e.f.13.12.2004 and the person who has received the transport agency service is requied to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism. 2.1 On scrutiny of service tax related documents for the period 2006- 07 to 2007-08, it was found that there was a variation of transportation charges for carriage inward and outward as per the value shown in their ST-3 Returns. Thereafter, it is alleged that the appellant has paid less service tax as there is a difference in transportation charges paid by the appellant corresponding to ST- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of Rs.4,33,547/-, it is his contention that the freight was paid to M/s Container Corporation of India for outward freight, which reveals that the payment was made to M/s Container Corporation of India for transportation of goods from their factory and the appellant has made a provision for the said payment which has been adjusted after the year end. Therefore, the said amount is not payable by the appellant as the same is on sale of the goods. 3.4 With regard to Rs.5,98,625, it is his contention that during the period, they made the provision for payment of freight as they did not receive actual invoices of transportation charges and after receiving the invoices from the transporter, they adjusted the amount where the provision is mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transportation service and the same is made evident from the invoices. In that circumstances, we hold that the demand of Rs.3,29,320/- is not sustainable against the appellant. 8. For the demand of Rs.3,40,377/-, it is evident from the record that the service received by the appellant for transportation of goods on sale to their various buyers. Therefore, the said service is not a service received by the appellant, in fact, the appellant has paid the transportation charges for the railways of transportation of goods outward from their factory. In that circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax thereof. Therefore, the demand of Rs.3,40,377/- is not sustainable. 9. We also take note of the fact that the demand of Rs.4,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
