9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating authority as well as the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), I do not find any reasoning/ observation whereby it could be inferred that the appellant had deliberately defied the provisions of law in discharging the service tax. On the other hand, now it is a settled position of law that the liability for payment of service tax towards GTA service under the relevant provisions could be disch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apter 32, 38 and 39 of CETA, 1985. During the period August 2006 to January, 2007 the appellant had received services under the category of Goods Transport Agency(GTA) service which was an input service for them. Also they were required to discharge service tax for availing GTA service under the reverse mechanism method as per Sec.68(2) read with Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules,1994, duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t without any success. Hence, the present Appeal. 4. The ld.C.A. for the appellant submitted that as soon as it was pointed out by the department, the entire credit amount have been deposited through TR-6 Challan along with interest. There was no intention, whatsoever, in discharging the Service Tax liability by debiting their CENVAT Credit account. It is his submission that therefore no penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs of the ld. Commissioner(Appeals). 6. I find that soon after being pointed out by the CERA audit, the appellant had discharged the Service Tax on GTA services availed through TR-6 challan and also the interest on such amount of service tax. On going through the orders of the adjudicating authority as well as the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), I do not find any reasoning/ observation whereby it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
