9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwar, Member (Technical) Shri Pradeep Agrawal (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.)AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present proceedings are carried out in compliance to Order dated 03/12/2015 passed by Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in Central Excise Appeal No.12 of 2015. The appeal filed by the appellant wherein appeal No.ST/6/2010 was initially decided by this Tribunal through Final Order No.ST/A/52175/2015 dated 06/07/2015. The said Final Order was appealed against before Hon ble High Court of Allahabad. The Hon ble High Court of Allahabad was pleased to set aside the final order and remanded the matter back to this Tribunal for decision afresh after giving an opportunity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant were called upon show cause as to why Service Tax amounting to ₹ 97,57,461/- and Education-Cess of ₹ 2,09,669/- should not be demanded from them and why an amount of ₹ 7,50,000/- should not be appropriate against the said demand. Further there were proposals for imposition of penalty under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No. 17/COMM/LKO/ST/2009 dated 31/08/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Lucknow and the same is impugned Order-in-Original in the present appeal. The Original Authority conformed the demand and imposed equal penalty. The Original Authority also appropriated ₹ 7,50,000/- deposited by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Agency Service and as provided by Rule 2 (1) (d) (v) of Service Tax Rules 1994 read with Notification No.36/2004-ST dated 31/12/2004 issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 appellant were required to discharge Service Tax as Service receiver as Goods Transport Agency Service and that abatement of 75% from assessable value provided by Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01/03/2006 was not admissible to the appellant since it was mandatory that there should be a specific declaration on the consignment note regarding non-availment of Cenvat credit and that as per statement dated 10/03/2008 of Shri S.C. Agrawal the appellants were not in a position to submit the copies of consignment notes. We find that Goods Transport Age ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
