9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts in brief are that the appellant is paying service tax on GTA after availing abatement under Notification No.35/2004-ST dt.3.12.2004. During the period from 01-01-2005 to 31-08-2007, it appeared that appellant failed to pay service tax correctly on the actual value of freight expenses incurred adopting a lesser value after wrongfully availing abate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s forum. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri T. Ramesh takes us to para 5.4 of the impugned order where a reference to communication dt. 2.3.2009 from the jurisdictional Range Officer has been referred to, stating that appellant had not produced wanted documents, hence for want of proper documents called for, the freight actually paid and avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be able to produce the same before the adjudicating authority. He also contends that SCN had been issued to them on 3.1.2008, whereas the entire disputed tax liability has been paid by them on 06.12.2007 and on this ground, the penalties imposed / upheld in the impugned order cannot be sustained. 3. On the other hand, Ld.A.R supports the impugned order. 4. After hearing both sides and goi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the taxable value. It is not clear from the annexure to the SCN indicating the tax liability of Rs. 1,97,442/- as to whether appellant had discharged any duty liability at all in respect of the GTA service. Hence all the issues are kept open to enable the de novo adjudicating authority to be able to decide the issue of duty liability if any, and consequential interest and penalty, if any. Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
