9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per their belief they are entitled for the exemption for the reason that only in case of transportation charge exceed ₹ 1500/-, it is chargeable to Service Tax but in the case of appellant, the freight charges ranging from ₹ 750/- to ₹ 1500/-. Moreover, the issue was not free from doubt and the same was finally decided in the case of Bellary Iron & Ores Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 150 - CESTAT, BANGALORE]. In these circumstances, we do not find any suppression of fact on the part of the appellant, hence the demand of longer period by invoking proviso to Section 73(1) is not sustainable. Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/263/11, ST/400/12, ST/70/12, ST/86445/14 - Order No. A/87891-87894/16/STB - Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable only if an individual consignment carried the freight is less than ₹ 750/-. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in an appeal by the appellant upheld the Order-in-Original relying on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Bellary Iron Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum [2010 (18) STR 406 (Tri.-Bang.)] wherein it is held that in case of individual consignment exemption is available only if the freight charge is less than ₹ 750/- and not freight charge is more than ₹ 750/-. Aggrieved by the impugned order the appellants are before us. 3. Shri J.H. Motwani, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that though the appellant has not given up the merits of the case, as the matter is pend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the issue involved is having grove interpretation of Notification No. 34/2004-ST and various litigations were going on this issue, therefore it cannot be said that there is a suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. In view of this fact, neither demand for the longer period nor penalty for the entire period is sustainable. 4. On the other hand Shri B. Kumar Iyer, learned Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Bellary Iron Ores Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the appellant is not entitled for the exemption of Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
