2017 (11) TMI 694

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adav (Advocate), for Appellant Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR, for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned A.R. for Revenue. 2. These two appeals are preferred against the adjudication order dated 16/11/2010, confirming demand of Service Tax of Rs. 64,28,273/- in Appeal No.ST/713/2011-CU[DB] and adjudication order dated 29/10/2010, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he weighbridge payment slips were generated disclosing relevant particulars such as truck number, gross weight etc. As the truck registration numbers are specific for each transporter, transport services undertaken by each of the contractors is eventually identified and payments were made on this basis. Statements of some other transporters engaged by the appellant(s) were recorded during the proc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sport of goods in a goods carriage and contains other specified details. 6. Clearly, as no consignment note, as generally understood or delineated in Rule 4B was issued by the transporters to the appellant, in the transactions in issue, the classification by the impugned order that appellant received transportation of goods by road service, is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is qua .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X