9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ceramics Pvt. Ltd.[2007 (12) TMI 24 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], CCE, Vapi vs. Neral Paper Mills P. Ltd [2008 (12) TMI 121 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - in favour of assessee. - S.T. APPEAL NO.ST/A/270/2011 AND C.O. NO.86/2011 - A-8/KOL/2013 - Dated:- 7-1-2013 - DR. D.M. MISRA, J. SHRI K.P.DAS, A.R.(SUPDT.) FOR THE REVENUE. SHRI M.S. MOHANKRISHNAN, CONSULTANT FOR THE RESPONDENT (S). DR. D.M. MISRA, J. This is an Appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.14/SLG/2011 dated 30.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal-IV), Kolkata. 2.1. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant had received GTA services during April, 2007 to December, 2007 and discharged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent, at the outset, submitted that though they have filed a Cross Objection, it is nothing but a written submission. He has contended that they do not dispute the amount of abatement disallowed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), as mentioned at Para 7(c) and 7(d) of the impugned Order. Pursuant to the said Order-in-Appeal, the Appellant had paid the service tax with interest on 09.06.2011 and communicated the same to Department on 10.06.2011. Further, he has submitted that the issue of admissibility of 75% abatement on the gross taxable value in discharging the service tax on GTA service in terms of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 on the basis of a general declaration, is no more res integra. The Hon ble Tribunal in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent also submitted that an amount of Rs.1470/- had been paid twice i.e. while paying the entire amount of service tax of Rs.3,08,366.00 confirmed in the impugned Order, and second time in discharging the amount of service tax disallowed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5.1. Heard both sides and perused the record. The limited issue involved in this case is that whether the Respondent are entitled to avail the benefit of abatement of 75% on the gross taxable value in terms of the Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006, while discharging their service tax liability on GTA service for the period from April, 2007 to December, 2007 on the basis of a general declaration filed by GTA service provider, in compliance with the condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant document. If it is found that tax, cess and interest have already been cleared, demand attributable to this transporter is set aside. If found otherwise, demand of such service tax, cess are upheld alongwith interest. 5.2. With regard to the observations made in Paras 7(c) and 7(d) above, ld. Consultant has submitted that they do not dispute the same, as is evident from the fact that they had paid the service tax along with interest of Rs.1470/- involved on the same. Ld. AR did not dispute the same. In these circumstances, I do not find merit in the Appeal filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the Order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and the Revenue s Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. The Respondent are entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
