M/S Indira Gandhi Bhartiya vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PII/AV/117/2010 dated 27.7.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

================================================ M/s Indira Gandhi Bhartiya Appellant Mahila Vikas S.S.K.

Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Kolhapur

Appearance: None for appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asst. Commissioner (AR), for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 05.08.2015 Date of Decision: 05.08.2015

ORDER NO

Per : M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PII/AV/117/2010 dated 27.7.2010.

2. When the matter was called out none appeared on behalf of the appellant. This matter was listed on 23.06.2015 on which date the Bench summarily adjourned the matter to be heard today. On perusal of the records we find that the issue lies in a narrow compass, accordingly we take up the appeal for disposal even in the absence of any representation from the appellant.

3. Heard learned D.R. and perused the records.

4. Learned D.R. reiterates the findings of the first appellate authority as well as the adjudicating authority.

5. We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability on the appellant under the category of Goods Transport Agency for the period December 2007 to April 2008. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant is liable to discharge the service tax liability as consignor or consignee of the goods i.e. sugarcane which were transported to the factory and vice versa. It is the case of the appellant that the contract entered by them are with individual truck/tractor owners and the transport of sugar cane from the sugar cane fields is for the members of the factory hence it is not covered under the category of Goods Transport Agency. The appellant also relies upon the decision in the case of Laxmi Narayana Mining vs. CST 2009 (16) STR 691.

5.1 We find that there is no dispute as to the fact that in this case the trucks/tractors which were used for transportation of sugarcane from the farmers fields to the sugar factory were of individuals. We find that the first appellate authority as well as the adjudicating authority have nowhere relied upon any contrary evidence to come to a conclusion to state that the trucks/tractors were not of individuals. On this factual matrix we find that the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Narayana Mining (supra) which has been upheld by the Honble High Court of Karnataka as reported in 2012 (26) STR 517 (Kar.) could have directly applicable in this case.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances and the authoritative judicial pronouncements, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.

(Dictated in Court)

(C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

nsk

1 3