Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

November 2015

[2015-TIOL-2134-CESTAT-MUM] Bhima Sahakari Karkhana Ltd vs. CCE, Pune III

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
In absence of issuance of a consignment note, mere transportation of goods in a motor vehicle is not a service provided under Goods Transport Agency service.

Facts:
The Appellant is a factory and had paid an amount as inward freight. The Revenue authorities demanded service tax as a service recipient under Rule 2(1)(d) (v) of the Service Tax Rules,1994 read with Notification No. 35/2004-ST. It was argued that it being a sugar manufacturing co-operative unit, amounts paid were for combined expenses of harvesting, loading and transportation of sugarcane and the payments were made to individual truck owners who did not issue any consignment note. The adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority decided the matter against the Appellant leading to the present appeal.

Held:
The Tribunal relied on the decision of Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. vs. CCE Lucknow [2014 (34) STR 850 (Tri.-Del)]. The said decision noted the definition of “Goods Transport Agency” provided u/s. 65(50b) of the Finance Act as any commercial concern which provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note. A consignment note should have the particulars as prescribed in explanation to Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The transportation of goods by individual truck owners without issue of consignment note would be simple transportation and not the service of Goods Transport Agency. Accordingly the appeal was allowed.

You May Also Like