Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Darbar Transport Company vs Cce, Jaipur I on 16 October, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 16/10/2014. DATE OF DECISION : 16/10/2014. Service Tax Appeal No. 493 of 2009 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 07 (DK) ST/JPR-I/2009 dated 10/02/2009 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals - I), Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of : the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair : copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? M/s Darbar Transport Company Appellant Versus CCE, Jaipur I Respondent
Appearance Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 54026/2014 Dated : 16/10/2014 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
The appellant is a transport agency, who entered into an agreement with its customers for doing the transportation business. However, the appellant does not have his own trucks and for the purpose of transportation, hires the same from the individual truck owners to whom he pays a part amount as rent. In the process he saves a small amount for himself.
2. The appellant has discharged its service tax liability on the entire amount of consideration received from its customers, under the category of GTA services. However, in as much as the appellant was saving a small amount, Revenue created tax liability on the same on the ground that by promoting the business of individual truck owners, they have earned the said amount as commission and they are again liable to pay service tax on the said amount.
3. Though we find no favour with the said stand of the Revenue, but keeping in view that the appellant has already discharged its service tax liability on the total collected amount from its customers, creating a duty liability in respect of a part amount from the same would amount to double taxation. On the same ground, the Tribunal in the case of Jai Shree Road Lines vs. CCE, Jaipur II reported in 2013 (31) S.T.R. 226 (Tri. Del.) has set aside the demand. By following the said decision, we find no merits in the impugned order passed by the authorities below. The same are accordingly set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
3