9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voucher and not on subsequent vouchers - In the instant case, the lower authorities have already disallowed the claim on the vouchers which are in numbers but each below 1500/-. Thus the order appears reasonable as per the Golden Rule of Interpretation for the reason that in the said N/N. 30/2004 the word “a” transaction is already mentioned. Penalty u/s 76 - Held that: - In the instant case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r transportation of such goods. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant proposing demand of service tax of ₹ 18,24,509/- under GTA services by alleging that appellant was not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004. After issuing a show cause notice, the demand was made which was upheld by the impugned order but the penalty under Section 76 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sactions were performed. The payment is consolidate, parties are common thus gross amount exceeded ₹ 1500/-. She also drew our attention to the order-in-appeal where consignments were individual consignments transported in a goods carriage for transportation of goods, giving truck no., trips, date & freight amount stripwise. She submits that the appellant has performed consolidate service. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 5. Regarding the departmental appeal, where the penalty was cancelled under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, it appears that after May, 2008, only one penalty is sustainable. In the instant case, the Appellate authority has already cancelled the another penalty. When it is so, then we find no reason to interfere with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
