Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that if it is assumed that the Service Tax is required to be paid by the appellant as alleged in the show cause notice, since the Service Tax has already been paid by the service provider. Central Excise Department cannot recover once again the Service Tax from the service receiver under Reverse Charge Mechanism. It is settled legal position that Service Tax cannot be demanded on the same services twice, irrespective of the fact whether the Service Tax has been paid by the service provider or by the service receiver. This issue is no more res integra. As it has been decided by the Hon'ble CESTAT in Omori India Pvt. Ltd. V/s CCE 2017 (11) TMI 759 CESTAT-Ahmedabad and Gurudev Dystuff (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/s CCE 2018 (2) TMI 1399- CESTAT-Ahmedabad. 4 ST/10539/2018-SMB 2.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that in this case neutrality of revenue is in existence because if the appellant will pay Service Tax, the CENVAT Credit would be available, in terms of the definition of 'Input Service' as defined in Rule 2 (i) of the CCR, 2004, to the appellant Company. Even if it is assumed that the appellant is required to pay Service Tax then CENVAT Credit is admissible because services are received and utilized in or in relation to manufacture of finished goods whether directly or indirectly. Therefore, if the Service Tax liability would be discharged through challan, the credit can also be taken by the appellant company on the basis of the challans. Since, the appellant has not paid the amount of Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism as alleged by the Department, they have not taken CENVAT Credit. If the appellant would have paid the service tax then CENVAT Credit would have been availed by them and in turn such CENVAT Credit would have also been utilized for payment of Central Excise Duty because the appellant regularly paid the Central Excise Duty through PLA. As the neutrality of payment is in existence. Therefore, the present demand is not sustainable. 2.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the contention of the appellate authority is not correct, that the transporter has arbitrarily levied and collected Service Tax from the appellant whereas the onus was on the appellant to pay Service Tax on incurring such transportation expenses/charges.

2.11. Learned Counsel for the appellant finally submitted that in view of the grounds mentioned above the impugned order is not sustainable and it should be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

3. The learned Authorized Representative on the other hand submitted that the impugned order has rightly confirmed the demand of Service Tax. Service Tax is payable generally by the provider of service. However, in certain taxable services in Reverse Charge Mechanism, Service Receiver is made liable to pay Service Tax and comply with other provisions of Finance Act, 1994. In case of GTA, a person liable to pay the freight on the transport of goods has also been made liable to pay Service Tax. As per Entry No. A (ii) of Notification No. 30/2012-ST, reverse charge is applicable only when taxable service provided or agreed to be provided by a goods transport agency in respect of transportation of goods by road. Therefore, if the freight is paid by an individual / proprietorship or HUF then the Service Tax thereon shall be paid by the GTA itself. In other cases the onus is on the consignor or consignee to pay Service Tax availing transportation services. The details of GTA services is given under Notification No. 30/2012-ST and according to this notification, every person liable to pay Service Tax must pay it and abatement may be considered. Therefore, from a plain reading of the definition of 'GTA' services 7 ST/10539/2018-SMB and Notification as mentioned above, it is clear that the GTA received by the appellant are well covered within the purview of GTA services and the appellant is required to pay Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism as provided under Notification No. 35/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended.

4.3 I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that if service tax was required to be paid by the appellant as alleged in the show cause notice, but the service tax has already been paid by the service provider, department cannot recover the service tax once again from the service receiver under Reverse Charge Mechanism. The service tax cannot be demanded on the same service twice, irrespective of the fact whether the service tax has been paid by the service provide by service receiver. This issue is no more res-integra. 10 ST/10539/2018-SMB 4.4 The learned Counsel for the appellant cited the case of Dhariwal Industries Limited vs. C.C.E. C. Anand- 2023 (10) TMI 595- CESTAT Ahmedabad, in which this Tribunal held that even though, legally the appellant is liable to pay service tax but in the facts of the present case the transport agency has admittedly paid such service tax. The assessment of payment of service tax by the transport agency has not been disputed by their jurisdictional officer. Therefore, no question can be raised as regard the service tax payment and assessment thereof at the end of the transport agency. If this be so, then the payment of service tax by the goods transport agency was made good as payment of service tax. Therefore, the demand against the appellant for the same service will amount to demand of service tax twice on the same service which in any case is not permissible. 4.5 This Tribunal further held that once the service provider discharged the service tax where the service recipient is liable to pay the service tax, demand of service tax on the same service from the service recipient shall not sustain on the ground that the particular service which already suffered the service tax cannot be made to suffer the service tax twice on the same service. Accordingly, the service tax paid by the transport agency in the facts of the present case is the payment of service tax and not deposit. Therefore, no demand can be raised from the appellant. The impugned order was held not sustainable and the same was set aside and appeal was allowed. 4.6 In my view, the facts of the above mentioned case, resemble with the facts of the present case and the principles of law laid down in the above mentioned case are fully applicable in the facts of the present case. 4.7 The learned Counsel also cited Saraswati Engineering Vs. C.C.E. & S.T. -Rajkot- 2023 (12) TMI 1005 - CESTAT Ahmedabad, Kiran Motors Ltd Vs. CCE, Surat- 2012 (7) TMI 135 -CESTAT, Ahmedabad, Sitaram Jaggnath Prasad Sihotia Vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & CGST - (2024) 17 Centax 75 (Tri.-Del), Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences & Technology Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. & CGST, Jaipur - 11 ST/10539/2018-SMB 2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 26 (Tri. - Del.), Rambal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai - 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 333 (Tri. - Chennai). 4.8 I agree with the principles of law laid down in the above mentioned cases by the Tribunals.

4.9 Though I agree with the learned Authorised Representative for the department that the appellant was required to pay the service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism as provided under Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended yet in view of the facts of this case, since the service tax has already been paid by the service provider, therefore, the department cannot recover the service tax once again from the service receiver under Reverse Charge Mechanism.

4.10 In view of the above observations, I am of the view that the learned first Adjudicating Authority and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have committed error in confirming the demand and recovery of service tax, amounting to Rs.1,17,881/- from the appellant. The first Adjudicating Authority and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the demand of interest on the amount of service tax and imposition of penalty of Rs.1,17,881/- under Section 78(i) of the Finance Act and Rs. 10,000/- under proviso to Section 77 (1) (b) of the Finance Act, 1994, respectively on the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order dated 28.09.2017 is liable to be set aside.