9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts in these two cases, in brief, are that in both the cases the appellants, who are manufacturers of excisable goods, received GTA services from the transporters. Though in accordance with the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 68(2) of the Service Tax Rules, in case of GTA services, it is the service recipient, the appellant in this case, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority, who confirmed the Cenvat credit demands along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellants. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), their appeals were dismissed. Against these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), these two appeals have been filed along with stay applications. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay applications. 3. Ms. Sukriti Das, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellants have strong prima facie case and hence, the requirement of pre-deposit may be waived for hearing of these appeals. 4. Shri Fateh Singh, the ld. SDR, opposed these stay applications by reiterating the findings in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized that in the case of GTA Service, it is the service recipient who is deemed to be the provider of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. In this case, though the appellants, as recipient of GTA service, were liable to pay service tax, the service tax is claimed to have been paid by the transporters. However, though the invoices/bills issued by the transporters mention some amount as service tax and also there are declarations that the ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
