9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability of the assessee and therefore, the Appeal of Revenue is rejected - Decided in favour of assessee. - 767 of 2007, 76 of 2008 - ST/367/2011(PB) - Dated:- 18-8-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Mr. Mathew John, JJ. Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sonal Bajaj, SDR for the Respondent Per Archna Wadhwa (for the Bench): 1. Both the appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other by the revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. We have heard Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate appearing for the assessee and Shri Sonal Bajaj, SDR for the revenue. 3. As per facts on record M/s. Triveni Engineering Industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ail exemption. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 18.4.06 alleging that inasmuch as the assessee is not goods transport agency , the exemption availed by them in terms of Notification No. 34/04 ST dated 3.12.04 was not available to them. Accordingly, the notice propose to confirm the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 1,32,176/- and education cess of Rs.2,644/- along with imposition of penalty. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the demand as proposed in the notice along with confirmation of interest along with imposition of identical penalty in terms of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It may be clarified that demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omer, in relation to transport of goods by road carriage, from so much of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Act . Vide para 4 of the Circular No.51/2007 ST dated 12.3.07, it has been clarified that these notifications (32/2004 ST 1/2006 ST) exempt taxable services from so much of service tax as specified therein, irrespective of the person made liable to pay service tax. 8. As is seen from the above, the Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee on notification No. 34/2004 ST with the above findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter would have ended and the appeal was required to be allowed. 9. However, it is seen that inspite of holding that the appellant was entitled to the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No. 32/2004, there is no other plea that the benefit of notification No. 34/04 ST dated 3.12.04 is wrongly extended to the assessee. Having held that the appellants is not required to pay any service tax and that exemption in terms of notification No. 34/04 is available to the assessee as it was the assessee who was discharging the duty liability as service recipient and the exemption, if any, would be available to the person who is under legal obligation to discharge the tax, we find that eligibility to Notification No. 32/2004-ST cannot alter the liability of the assessee and therefore, the Appeal of Revenue is rejected. 13. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above manner. (Pronounced in the Court on 18.8.2011) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
