Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)M/S. Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co vs C.C.E. Lucknow on 13 January, 2014
"7. The matter has come up for decisions on earlier occasions by the
Tribunal in Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. and Others v. C.C.E,
Lucknow - 2014 (34) S.T.R. 850 (Tri.-Del.), it was held that the Goods
Transport Agency in terms of its definition under Section 65(50b)
provides services in relation to transportation of goods and issues
consignment note which should have particulars as prescribed in
Explanation to Rule 4B.
Section 2 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Service Tax 1994
M/S Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Karkhana ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 18 November, 2016
=2009-TIOL-1123-CESTAT-BANG followed in
Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Karkhana Ltd vs. Commissioner of
Central Excise, Pune -III [2017 (3) GSTL 199 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and in
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Aurangabad vs.
Jaikumar Fulchand Ajmera [2017 (48) STR 52 (Tri.-Mumbai)]
=2016-TIOL-2566-CESTAT-MUM the issue stands settled with
detailed orders. In re Jaikumar Fulchand Ajmera, it was held that:
M/S.Northern Coalfields Ltd vs Cce, Bhopal on 21 May, 2015
In Northern Coalfields Limited v. C.C.E., Bhopal vide Final
Order No. 53313/2015, dated 29-10-2015, an identical situation
was examined by the Tribunal. There also, the payment slips were
generated by the service recipient containing relevant particulars like
truck number, weight, etc., for monitoring and paying contractors for
their service. No consignment notes were issued by the transporter.
The Tribunal held that as no consignment note as generally
understood or delineated in Rule 4B was issued by the transporter to
the appellant in the transaction the tax liability under GTA does not
arise.
Commissioner Of Centrla Excise, ... vs M/S Vijay Agro Products Private ... on 28 August, 2018
"7. On deeper perusal of the records, we find that appellant has been
taking a stand that the amounts paid by them as inward freight was
paid to owners of individual trucks and not to Goods Transport
Agency. It is seen from the records this stand of the appellant is not
controverted by Revenue in any way as also the stand that no
consignment note is issued by truck owners. We agree to the
submission made by the learned Counsel that the issue is now
squarely covered by the recent judgment of the Tribunal in the case
Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. (supra). We respectfully reproduce the
relevant paragraph.
1