9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is they were not able to pay the balance amount on transportation of sugarcane and inward transportation of stores material. We find that in this case, non-discharge of service tax liability is not due to ulterior motive but due to financial difficulties that was faced by the appellant. In our view it is a fit case for us to invoke the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and we do so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we perused the records and find that the appeal could be disposed of even in the absence of any representation from the appellant. Accordingly, we take up the appeal for disposal. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding discharge of service tax liability on the sugarcane transportation charges during the period 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 (upto August 2008). The appellant had not paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. First appellate authority also did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellant and rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal. 4. On perusal of the records of appeal, we find that the appellant is contesting only on the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s specifically recorded that the appellant has deposited the service tax liability along with interest and also recorded that the appellant had submitted the copies of TR-6/GR-7 challans evidencing the payments. We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability on the transportation of incoming material and more specifically sugarcane. In our considered view, duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
