9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that extended period has rightly been invoked because from 1.1.2005 there was no confusion as to who is liable to pay service tax in case of goods transport agency. Therefore I uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal of the appellant. - ST/1441/2012-SM - Final Order No. 21069 / 2016 - Dated:- 3-11-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri G. B. Khot, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Ezhilmathi, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present 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 adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h interest of ₹ 3,958/- already paid by the appellant. Penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act was also imposed and further penalty of ₹ 1,38,076/- under Section 78 was also imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) on the ground that the appellant has not actually rendered such service as a consignor, he has not availed the credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods for providing such taxable services but the appellant merely paid the tax which in the normal course should have been paid by the transport agency. The other ground raised by the appellant is that the entire demand is time barred and the demand which is within the limitation period is discharged to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfusion regarding the liability and the payment of service tax from 1.1.2005 and hence the contention of the appellant that non-payment, late payment, non-registration was due to the confusion is not acceptable. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the records, I am of the considered opinion that there was no infirmity in the impugned order as the learned Commissioner (A) has allowed 75% abatement on the taxable value for the purpose of payment of service tax. I also find that extended period has rightly been invoked because from 1.1.2005 there was no confusion as to who is liable to pay service tax in case of goods transport agency. Therefore I uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
