9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was not able to furnish documentary evidence, such as consignment notes, to prove that the freight and service tax was paid by the consigneee, the demand was confirmed. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), to uphold the view of the Adjudicating Authority, was of the view that profit and loss account and other documents produced by the appellant show that there has been non payment of service tax. The Tribunal, after following the decision in the case of RAMCO Cements Ltd., who is the recipient of service, held that the appellant had paid only freight and hence liable to pay tax under this category and directed pre-deposit of ₹ 10.00 lakhs. - disputed fact does not merit consideration or does not justify any modification o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernal Audit, Salem Commissionerate on 18.11.2010 and 19.11.2010, it was found that there was short payment of service tax and they had not shown the entire amount of service charges received in the half yearly ST3 returns and challans in which service tax was paid. Further it was noticed by the Departmental audit officers that huge amounts were paid for hire charges/transport charges which was nothing but transportation charges of fly ash from Metturdam to Alathiyur. Since the appellant was not able to provide any evidence or consignment notes showing that service tax has been paid on the transport/hire charges, show cause notice was issued demanding a sum of ₹ 8,53,874/-. 3. In response to the show cause notice issue, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inance Act, 1994; iv) I demand appropriate interest as applicable on the amount of Service tax demanded at sl.No.(ii) (iii) above, under Section 75 ibid from M/s.R.Muthulakshmi Co., Mettur; v) I impose a penalty of ₹ 45,00,897/- on M/s.R.Muthulakshmi Co., Mettur under Section 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994; vi) I impose a penalty of ₹ 5000/- on M/s.R.Muthulakshmi Co., Mettur under Section 77(2) of Chapter V of Finance Act 1994 for the contraventions ibid; 4. Aggrieved by this order of adjudication, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who, after considering the entire gamut of the case, came to hold that for the period 01.10.2005 to 30.6.2009, demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterials placed before this Court. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that some records have been produced before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, it is a clear case of material evidence, which has to be appreciated by the Tribunal insofar as invocation of Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 by the Original Authority, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Adjudicating Authority was of the view that either the consignor or consignee, who incurred the freight, has to pay the service tax and as the appellant was not able to furnish documentary evidence, such as consignment notes, to prove that the freight and service tax was paid by the consigneee, the demand was confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
