News Update

CBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silverFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerCentre receives Rs 18.5 lakh crore tax revenue upto Feb monthUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayExpert Committee on developing GIFT IFSC as 'Global Finance and Accounting Hub' submits report to IFSCAIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEADefence Production issues notification for re-organisation of DGQAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of Lokpal
 
ST - Notification 34/04-ST - appellant is not eligible for exemption because entire goods transported by GTA in present case consisted of only single consignment and freight charges for single consignment exceeded Rs 750: CESTAT

By TIOL News Services

MUMBAI, JULY 25, 2014 : THE issue relates to interpretation of Notification No. 34/2004-ST dated 03/12/2004.

The said notification grants exemption from service tax in two situations. The first is where “the gross amount charged on consignments transported in a goods carriage does not exceed rupees one thousand five hundred; the second situation is where “the gross amount charged on an individual consignment transported in a goods carriage does not exceed rupees seven hundred fifty”. As per the explanation appended to the Notification “an individual consignment” means all goods transported by a goods transport agency by road in a goods carriage for a consignee.

In the present case the goods were transported in a goods carriage, which was received by the appellant and the freight charged was Rs.1500/- or less. The entire goods transported consisted of only one consignment and the consignee was the appellant. According to the appellant, the transaction is covered by the first situation i.e. the gross amount charged on consignments transported in a goods carriage does not exceed Rs.1500/-. Therefore, it is their contention that they are exempt from liability to service tax. Reliance is placed on the decision in GondalPrestressed Concrete Vs. CCE, Rajkot- 2012-TIOL-1859-CESTAT-AHM wherein stay has been granted in a similar situation.

Revenue did not agree to this contention and, therefore, a service tax demand was confirmed denying the exemption under notfn. 34/2004-ST; the tax confirmed is Rs.11.90 lakhs and the penalty imposed is Rs.5.95 lakhs along with interest.

As the Commissioner (A) upheld this order the appellant is before the CESTAT and reiterate their stand.

The Revenue representative submitted that the case is squarely covered by the final order in the case of Bellary Iron & Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum - 2010-TIOL-704-CESTAT-BANG and where it was held that the assessee is not eligible for exemption.

In his rejoinder the appellant submitted that the findings of the Tribunal in the case cited by Revenue is only an obiter dicta ( a remark in a judgment that is "said in passing") and, therefore, it does not have a binding effect in view of the Bombay High Court decision in Mohandas Issardas vs. A.N. Sattanathan, CC.

The Bench observed that the findings given in the case of Bellary Iron & Ores Pvt. Ltd. (supra) cannot be considered as obiter dicta as the Tribunal had discussed the entire notification and thereafter considered its scope and passed the order. Moreover, the reliance placed by the appellant on the decision in GondalPrestressed Concrete, the same is an interim order and it is a settled position in law that an interim order does not lay down any ratio.

The Tribunal also added -

++ Prima facie it appears that the appellant is not eligible for exemption because the entire goods transported by the GTA in the present case consisted of only a single consignment and the freight charges for the single consignment exceeded Rs.750/- and therefore, in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bellary Iron & Ores Pvt. Ltd. , the appellant is prima facie not eligible for the exemption.

Noting that the appellant had not pleaded any financial hardship, the CESTAT directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the entire service tax demand and report compliance.

(See 2014-TIOL-1335-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023