Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Lg Polymers India Pvt Ltd vs Visakhapatnam-I on 5 September, 2023
1 Appeal No. ST/1685/2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. - I
Service Tax Appeal No. 1685 of 2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.08/2012 (V-I) ST dated 20.03.2012 passed by
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)
LG Polymers India Pvt Ltd., .. APPELLANT
RR Venkatapuram,
Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh - 530 029.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise .. RESPONDENT
& Service Tax Visakhapatnam- I GST Commissionerate, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530 035.
APPEARANCE:
Shri G V S Ganesh, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri A V L N Chary, Authorised Representative for the Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No. A/30298/2023 Date of Hearing:05.09.2023 Date of Decision:05.09.2023 [ORDER PER: BENCH] This appeal is directed against Orders-in-Appeal No. 08/2012 (V-I) ST dated 20.03.2012
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding taxability of the amounts paid by the appellant to various transporters/individual owners of truck, for transferring of styrene monomer from port to appellant's premises during the period 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2010.
4. From the records, it is noticed that the appellant is manufacturer of chemicals and imports raw material called styrene monomer, for use in the factory, the said styrene monomer is transported in bulk and stored in Visakhapatnam port area. The Appellant hire tankers for transportation of this raw material to the factory in Visakhapatnam itself. It is the case of the Revenue, that amount paid by the appellant for transportation through tankers, is taxable under reverse charge mechanism in the hands of the appellant. Appellant is contesting the said demand.
2 Appeal No. ST/1685/20125. Learned Counsel submits that on similar issue in respect of very same assessee this bench has taken a view as reported at [2018 (10) TMI 553- CESTAT, Hyderabad]. It is his submission that in the earlier case, as cited, Adjudicating Authority had extended them abatement of 75% on the value of the freight. While, in this case both the Lower Authorities have not extended any abatement of 75% on the total freight charges paid, which is incorrect.
6. Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of the Lower Authorities.
7. On careful consideration of submissions made, we do find that identical issue for the earlier period came up before the bench and it was held by an order dated 12.09.2018 (cited), that service tax liability arises on the appellant. We do not find any reason to deviate from such a view already taken.
8. As regards the submissions made by the Learned Counsel that both the lower authorities have not extended the benefit of abatement of 75% on the freight value, we do find it so. The submissions of the Counsel is acceptable and we find strong force in those submissions that the benefit of abatement of 75% on the freight value is eligible to the appellant. Thus 75% of abatement of the freight value, paid by the appellant needs to be extended, which is considered and allowed in earlier two appeals. The adjudicating authority shall re-calculate the tax liability by extending abatement of 75% of the freight value and calculate the tax payable along with interest and appellant will discharge the same immediately.
9. Since, the issue involved in this case was being agitated in various courts, the penalty imposed by the Lower Authorities are unwarranted and are set aside. We set aside all the penalties invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Appeal stands allowed as indicated herein above.
(Operative portion of this order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing) (ANIL CHOUDHARY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (A.K. JYOTISHI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) jaya