TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING CO. VERSUS COMMR. OF ST., BANGALORE [ 2009 (9) TMI 71 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] and in the case of CCE C, GUNTUR VERSUS KANAKA DURGA AGRO OIL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ANR. [ 2009 (3) TMI 130 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] that transport undertaken by individuals owning and operating lorry and trucks is not subject to service tax as in these cases services has not been provided by Goods Transport Agency Service. Demand set aside - Appeal allowed. - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri R. Parthasarathy, Consultant for the Appellant Shri N. Satyanarayanan, Assistant Commissioner for the Respondent ORDER It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , proposing, inter alia, to demand Service Tax along with applicable interest under Section 75 ibid. and penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 ibid. 3. The assessee, upon receipt of the Show Cause Notice, filed a detailed reply thereby seriously disputing its liability to Service Tax under GTA and also disputing the basic factual assumption insofar as transportation of limestone from mines to crusher / stock pit located within the mining area was concerned, on the following grounds:- As and when limestone is extracted, the same is required to be moved on a continuous basis to be fed in lumps to crushing units. For this purpose, they had appointed various transporters who own tipper lorries for transportation of limestone extrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be covered under Rule 2(1)(d)(v) ibid. With regard to the allegation as to suppression of facts, what is required to be filed is only the value of taxable services on which Service Tax is required to be paid and since freight paid to the individual transporters was not exigible to Service Tax under GTA, the same was not shown in their S.T.-3 return. Even otherwise, the freight paid per trip was less than Rs.750/- and hence, any freight amount lesser than Rs.750/- per trip being not value of taxable services received by them, the aggregate was not required to be incorporated in their S.T.-3 return. Hence, for this reason, the allegation as to suppression of facts is without any basis. In any case, omission to furnish details in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The adjudicating authority / Commissioner having considered the reply of the appellant during adjudication, however, vide impugned Order-in-Original No. 20/2013-ST dated 23.12.2013 has confirmed the demands, as proposed in the Show Cause Notice, but has dropped the imposition of penalty under Section 76 ibid. alone. 5. It is against the demand in the said order that the present appeal has been filed by the assessee / appellant, before this forum; Revenue has not filed any appeal against the dropping of penalty by the Commissioner. 6. Shri R. Parthasarathy, Ld. Consultant, appeared for the appellant and Shri N. Satyanarayanan, Ld. Assistant Commissioner, defended the Commissioner. 7. Facts are not in dispute. The only short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T., Kolkata [2013 (30) S.T.R. 426 (Tri. Kol.)] iv. Lakshminarayana Mining Co. v. Commissioner of S.T., Bangalore [2009 (16) S.T.R. 691 (Tri. Bang.)] v. K.M.B. Granites Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Salem [2010 (19) S.T.R. 437 (Tri. Chennai)] vi. Commissioner v. K.M.B. Granites Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (32) S.T.R. J205 (Mad.)] vii. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. S.T., BBSR-I [2022 (57) G.S.T.L. 242 (Tri. Kol.)] viii. Dinshaws Dairy Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Nagpur [2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 170 (Tri. Mum.)] ix. Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune-III [2016 (41) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. Mum.)] x. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex, Kolhapur [2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to Service tax and imposition of penalty. I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and allow these appeals. 11.2 It appears that the Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras against the above order and the Hon ble High Court vide its Order reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. J205 (Mad.) has dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the order of this Bench. 11.3 Further, we find that the other orders relied upon by the Ld. Consultant clearly confirm the view that the essential requirement is the issuance of consignment note in order to be covered under the definition of GTA and in the absence of the same, the transporters/contractors rendering transport services in mines cannot be said to be GTA and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
