Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Varanasi Versus M/s R.P.L. Projects Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (7) TMI 1786 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – 2019 (25) G. S. T. L. 113 (Tri. – All.)
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 23-5-2018
ST/Stay/70051/2018 IN APPEAL No.ST/70066/2018-CU[DB] – ST/A/71120/2018-CU[DB]
Service Tax
Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical)
Shri Mohammad Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Appellant
Shri Prashant Shukla, Advocate for Respondent
ORDER
Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar
Heard learned A.R. on Stay Application. Revenue has sought stay of operation of order passed by learned Commissioner through which proceedings for demand of Service Tax were dropped. Since, the order is non executable, the stay application is rejected. Since the matter is covered by earlier decision of this Tribunal, appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the sides.
2. The present Appeal is filed by Revenue against O
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s NCL and M/s IGL and that the terms and conditions of the contract were for providing GTA Services to NCL and IGL and on the said service value NCL and IGL were paying Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism. They further submitted that the activity was shifting of coal from one place to another within the mining area of NCL and the service included transportation of coal in contractor‟s tipping trucks from the coal stockyard to Coal Handling Plant situated within the main premises of NCL and therefore, they contended that service provided by them was rightly covered under GTA Service and did not qualify the requirement of definition of „Cargo Handling Service‟. The Learned Commissioner held that none of the activities provided by the respondent to either NCL or to IGL fall under the definition of 'Cargo Handling Service' and therefore no service tax liability can be fasten on respondent under that category and also that the said service recipients were discharg
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Service provider is providing certain ancillary services such as loading/unloading, packing/unpacking, transshipment and temporary storage in the course of transport of goods by road then value of such ancillary services should be counted towards GTA Services. He has further submitted that learned Original Authority has relied on said CBEC Circular as one of the grounds for his decision. He has also submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Rungta Projects Ltd. Vs CCE reported at 2017-TIOL-3782-CESTAT.
6. On carefully considering the submissions from both the sides and after going through the joint “statement of facts and grounds of appeal” filed by revenue, we find that revenue could not satisfactorily establish that the transactions in the present appeal are not covered by the said clarification dated 05.10.2015 issued by CBEC. Further, revenue did not contradict the finding of the original authority that same service has been subjected
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =