Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : White N White Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Service Tax Appeal No.54669 of 2023 (SM)
Date of Judgement/Order : 18/01/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

White N White Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)

The recent order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Delhi in the case of White N White Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise addresses the issue of service tax on the appellant under the category of “Goods Transport Agency” (GTA). The appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal No. 64(AK)ST/JDR/2023 dated 20.03.2023, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand for service tax.

Background: White N White Minerals Pvt. Ltd. is registered under Service Tax and operates as a receiver of services categorized under GTA. During a routine audit by Central Excise officers, it was noted that the appellant, while determining the tax liability, erroneously treated the amount paid to various transport agencies, exceeding Rs.750/- but less than Rs.1,500/-, as exempted under Notification No. 34/2004 – ST dated 3.12.2004 (as amended). The department contended that the gross amount charged for individual consignments exceeded Rs.750/-, making it liable for service tax.

Show Cause Notice and Adjudication: A show cause notice dated 09.04.2013 was issued, alleging that service tax of Rs.3,16,261/-, along with interest and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78, should be imposed. The Adjudicating Authority, through an order-in-original dated 28.02.2022, confirmed the demand under the show cause notice. The appellant’s appeal was also dismissed by the impugned order.

Appellant’s Arguments: The appellant argued that the services received did not fall under the definition of “Goods Transport Agency” since no consignment note was issued by the service provider. They also claimed exemption under Notification No.34/2004 as the freight charges for the full truckload for an individual trip were less than Rs.1500/-. Additionally, they challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation, asserting that it was a case of interpretation rather than suppression, fraud, or willful misstatement.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031