9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 22.3.2012 vide which the learned Commissioner (A) has allowed 75% abatement on taxable value for the purpose of payment of service tax and also directed the adjudicating authority to recalculate the interest and penalty accordingly. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id gross amount of freight works out to Rs. 11,26,098/- after taking into consideration the exemption as provided under Notification No.13/2008-ST dated 1.3.2008. The service tax payable on the said taxable value of services works out to Rs. 1,38,076/-. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant and vide the impugned Order-in-Original the respondent confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,38 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time barred and the demand which is within the limitation period is discharged to the extent of Rs. 30,330/-. The appellant have also raised the ground that there was no suppression of fact with intent to evade duty. The learned Commissioner (A) has partly allowed the contention of the appellant vide his impugned order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the learned AR supported the impugned order by submitting that both the authorities have rightly invoked the extended period. He further submitted that the appellant was liable to pay service tax as the service tax on the said service was introduced from 1.1.2005 and Notification No.34/2004 dated 3.12.2004 prescribes the person liable to pay service tax. There was no confusion regarding the lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
