TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and such taxable service rendered in relation to transmission / distribution of electricity would be eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification dated 20.07.2010 and 27.02.2010 - in the case of M/S KEDAR CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLHAPUR [ 2014 (11) TMI 336 - CESTAT MUMBAI ] it was held that the expression for would cover a wide gamut of activities and the activities undertaken by the appellant would be eligible for the benefit of the Notification as was held by the Tribunal in Noida Power Company Limited. Considering the decision and as GTA Services were availed for transport of Line materials and Tower parts which are related to transmission of electricity are eligible for the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 and also Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010. As the Service Tax demanded is meagre and also major portion of the Service Tax paid before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, the issue should have been settled as the Revenue has realized the entire tax. Demand of the tax again from TNEB would tantamount to double taxation which is not legally permissible. Various decisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Service Tax along with interest and also imposing the penalties. 2.3 As their appeal to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Salem was rejected, the appellant came in appeal before this forum. 3.1 Being a recipient of GTA Services for transportation of Line materials and Tower parts to various distribution circles of TNEB, the Department has found the appellant liable for payment of Service Tax in terms of Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. In terms of the above legal provisions, the person who is liable to pay Service Tax is the consignor or a consignee, in case he falls under any of the below seven categories and the appellant being a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 will be liable to pay Service Tax for GTA Services received. For ease of reference, the statutory provisions are extracted below:- Section 65(50b) of Finance Act, 1994 defines 'goods transport agency' means any (person who) provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called; Section 65(105) (zzp) of Finance Act, 1994 defines taxable s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid, the appellant has requested to drop the proceedings initiated in the Show Cause Notice. As the Show Cause Notice in the instant case was issued vide Sl.No. 02/2013 (AC) dated 20.03.2013, it is to be commented that major part of the Service Tax of Rs.64,860/- was paid by M/s. Annai Enterprises on 12.06.2012 before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. Whereas Mr. S. Natarajan have remitted a sum of Rs.43,613/- on 09.05.2013 which was within less than two months from the time of issuance of the Show Cause Notice. 3.5 The Ld. Advocate Shri Manoj Niranjan appeared and argued for the appellant. It was submitted that the entire amount of Service Tax demanded has already been paid and as such there is no merit in the impugned order No. 132/2014-ST dated 15.05.2014, that as a distribution and the transmission utility, they are exempted to pay Service Tax in relation to related services in terms of the exemption Notification No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 that entire amount of Service Tax demanded was paid and as such the impugned order dated 15.05.2014 is not maintainable and invoking of the extended period is not justified as there is no violation of provisions of the Finance Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to transmission of electricity are exempted from the payment of Service Tax. i. KEC International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Chandigarh) [F.O. Nos. 40120-40121/2022 dated 23.08.2022]. ii. M.P. Power Transmission Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal [2011 (24) STR 67 (Tri. - Del.)]. iii. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut [2011 (28) STR 412 (Tri. - Del.)]. 3.8 The appellants further submitted that the Delhi Principal Bench has also passed identical orders in the case of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Versus C.C.E., Allahabad [2013 (30) S.T.R. 259 (Tri. - Del.)], wherein the assesee's appeal was allowed and the department appeal was dismissed. 3.9 It was also put forth that the exemption under Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010 and Notification No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 is an omnibus exemption as the said Notification does not exempt any particular category of taxable service but exempts all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity and distribution of electricity . Thus whether or not the taxable services relating to transmission of el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility of GTA Services on Reverse Charge basis received by TNEB, Mettur. 6.2 The second issue is regarding invocation of extended period for demand of Service Tax and imposition of penalties in the facts and the circumstances of this appeal. 7.1 It is an admitted fact that the transport contractors viz., Mr. S. Natarajan and M/s. Annai Enterprises have paid the demanded Service Tax. The Order-in-Original passed by the original adjudicating authority at paragraph No. 4.05 have recorded as follows:- 4.05. The party vide their reference letter GM/MWS/AO/AAO/AS/APS/AE/F.C.Excise/D.No.07/2013 dated 18.05.2013 informed that M/s. Annai Enterprises have remitted a sum of Rs.64,860/- vide Challan No. 003 dated 12.06.2012 and M/s. S. Natarajan have remitted Rs.43,613/- vide Challan No. 00001 dated 09.05.2013 and requested to drop the Show Cause Notice since the amount demanded in the Show Cause Notice has been settled. 7.2 It has to be observed that major portion of the Service Tax demand was thus settled before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. Even Mr. S. Natarajan who is the second contractor have remitted the remaining portion of Rs.43,613/- vide Challan No. 001 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not coming forth from the records to be called as GTA. These transporters should have issued consignment notes for transportation of these line materials and tower parts. Service Tax payable was computed only on the basis of freight amount paid to these transporters. 7.7 As the Service Tax demanded is meagre and also major portion of the Service Tax paid before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, the issue should have been settled as the Revenue has realized the entire tax. Demand of the tax again from TNEB would tantamount to double taxation which is not legally permissible. Various decisions of the judicial fora have laid down the principle that double taxation for the same service activity is not in accordance with law. 8. Even on the issue of invoking extended period, it has to be commented that all the services relating to transmission of generation of electricity are exempted including by Notification No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 and also Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010 making the intention of the Government very clear regarding charging of Service Tax from the entities involved in generation or transmission of electricity. As the issue is of inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
