2018 (4) TMI 1103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... provider nor the service receiver for the transaction of transportation of goods or a GTA under dispute. That the transportation service is provided by some third agency and the receiver of service is the principal-namely Maihar Cement Ltd. Thus, no Service Tax liability arises under the Scheme of the Act and the Rules on the appellant/assessee, who is the consignment agent of Maihar Cement Lt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... accordingly vide Show Cause Notice dated 08/10/2012, Service Tax of ₹ 6,87,243/- was proposed to be demanded along with penalty for the period 2007 08 2008 09 invoking the extended period of limitation. 2. The SCN was adjudicated vide OIO dated 28/03/2014. It is recorded in the order that the appellant did not submit any defence reply. Thereafter through consultant, they requested by l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ad with Service Tax Rules, 1994. Admittedly, the appellant is neither the service provider nor the service receiver for the transaction of transportation of goods or a GTA under dispute. Admittedly, the goods are sent by the principal Maihar Cement Ltd. to the appellant for sale on consignment basis. Thus, the ownership of the goods lying with the appellant for sale on consignment basis, is with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X