Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Lg Polymers India Pvt Ltd vs Visakhapatnam-I on 12 September, 2018
Appeal No. ST/838/2010
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Division Bench
Court - I
Appeal No. ST/838/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 08/2010 (V-I) Service Tax dated
26.02.2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise &
Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)
M/s LG Polymers India Pvt. Ltd., .....Appellant(s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise
& Service Tax, Visakhapatnam - I .....Respondent(s)
Appearance Shri B.N. Gururaj, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Bhanu Kiran, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Hon'ble Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 21/08/2018 Date of Decision: 12/09/2018 FINAL ORDER No. A/31157/2018 [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 08/2010 (V-I) Service Tax dated 26.02.2010.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
1
Appeal No. ST/838/2010
3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue involved in this appeal is regarding the demand of service tax from the appellant on the amounts paid as freight charges for transportation of imported Styrene Monomer from Visakhapatnam port to their factory premises.
4. Appellants uses imported Styrene Monomer as raw material for the manufacturing activity; imported the same in bulk and stored in shore tanks in Visakhapatnam port area; hire tankers are used for transport of this raw material to the factory. It is the case of the Revenue that the amount paid by the appellant for transportation through tankers is taxable under reverse charge mechanism and they are liable to pay service tax liability. The Adjudicating Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority after following due process of law, confirmed the demands raised along with interest and imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1944.
5. Learned Counsel while assailing the impugned order submits that the tankers which are procured by the appellant for transportation or from individual tanker owners and they cannot be considered as Goods Transport Agency. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bellary Iron & Ores Pvt. Ltd., [2010 (18) STR 406] and CCE & C, Guntur Vs. Kanaka Durga Agro Oils Products Pvt. Ltd., [2009 (15) STR 399] for this proposition, he submits that the impugned order be set aside.
6. Learned Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
2
Appeal No. ST/838/2010
7. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides, we find from records indicate that appellant herein had entered into a contract for movement of Styrene Monomer from port to their factory with one contractor namely M/s VPRS Transport. The terms and conditions indicate that the said VPRS Transport needs to provide tankers with explosive license and valid calibration and dedicated tankers only for the transportation of raw material from port to factory and no outside tankers shall be allowed. The said agreement is very clear and indicates that the said VPRS Transport is engaged in the activity of Goods Transport Agency Services. We find that the claim of the appellant is that the tankers supplied by individuals and hence not taxable under GTA is incorrect inasmuch the said VPRS Transport issues an invoice cum challans for movement of Styrene Monomer from port to factory premises of the appellant. On the factual matrix, it is seen that the decision relied by the Learned Counsel is will not carry the case any further.
8. In our view, the impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
(Order pronounced on 12/09/2018 in open court) P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO M.V. RAVINDRAN MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Lakshmi....
3