9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, was liable to discharge service tax as the service provided by the appellant would qualify as Business Auxiliary Service - also, the appellant had collected rent from M/s Walzen Strips Ltd. but had failed to discharge service tax on the rent collected - further, the appellant had also failed to discharge service tax on the GTA service availed by the appellant - demand of service tax along wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of excisable goods. The appellant has provided taxable services i.e. Business Auxiliary Service. During the period from 2006-07 to 2011-12, the appellant had undertaken job work and had cleared the goods without payment of Central Excise duty. During the relevant period, the appellant collected rent from M/s Walzen Strips Ltd. and also availed G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77(1)(a) to ₹ 2,90,800/-. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that they were under the bonafide belief that they were not required to pay service tax for the job work undertaken by the appellant. He also submitted that the value of the taxable services availed by the appellant was below the exemption limit. He further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharge service tax on the GTA service availed by the appellant. Therefore, I find that the demand of service tax along with interest is sustainable. 7. Further, I note that the appellant had paid the service tax amount along with interest as pointed out during the departmental audit. On perusal of records, I find that the appellant has not denied the observations made in the spot memo. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
