Case Law Details
East India Minerals Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
Activity of transportation of iron ore lumps from the mines site to the appellant’s crusher plant does not constitute GTA service in terms of Sec.65(105)(zzp) read with Sec.65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
We have carefully gone through the relevant documents, such as, the contract between the appellant and the raising contractors, the monthly bills raised by them on the appellant, the transit pass in ‘Form-G’, issued by the mining authority for the purpose of payment of mining royalty, and transportation of iron ore from the mines site. The raising contractors have not issued any other document in the name of the appellant, for the purpose of transportation of iron ore, which can be termed as a consignment note, as stipulated under Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules,1994, as amended. As per the legal principles decided by different benches of Tribunal and relied upon by the appellant, the activities of transportation of iron ore in the present case, do not fall under the GTA service in terms of Sec.65(105)(zzp) of the Finance Act,1994, nor the raising contractors fall under the definition of ‘GTA’ as defined under Sec.65(50b) of the said Finance Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the common Order-in-Appeal No.26-28/ST/BBSR-II/2009 dt. 10.07.2009, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar. The said Order-in-Appeal disposed of three Orders-in-Original No.11/RKL-II/2008 dt. 21.05.2008, No. 23/RKL- II/2008 dt. 06.11.2008 and No.25/RKL-II/2008 dt. 18.11.2008 passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Rourkela-II Division, Rourkela rejecting the following three refund applications filed by the appellant.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
