9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bona fide belief of not to pay the Service Tax on GTA Service. In such situation, the Tribunal observed that none of the case laws cited by the respondent is relevant in the present case - there is no error in the order of the Tribunal on this issue. The next contention of the Ld. Counsel is that the final order was pronounced on 11.10.2017 in the open court in the absence of the respondent - H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was allowed. 2. The relevant portion of the Final Order dated 11.10.2017 is reproduced below:- 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent is an exporter of iron-ore fines for which, they utilized services of GTA. The respondent had not paid the service tax on GTA service. Subsequently, the respondent paid the entire amount of service tax on GTA service. Adjudicating A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility with intent to evade service tax. The assessee was first asked vide letter dated 22.05.2006 to submit details of their export and details of payment of freight. So, the assessee became aware from 22.05.2006 that they were liable to pay service tax on transportation service received by them. But instead of acting immediately or seeking necessary clarifications, they deposited service tax afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to evade payment of tax and the imposition of penalties are warranted. The ld.A.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Quality Welding Works Vs. CCEx, Ludhiana : 2011 (21) STR 187 (Tri.-Del.). The ld. Counsel for the respondent also cited several case laws. None of the case laws are relevant in the present case. 3. The applicant/respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal on this issue. 4. The next contention of the Ld. Counsel is that the final order was pronounced on 11.10.2017 in the open court in the absence of the respondent. The Tribunal had not fixed the date of pronouncement of the order while reserving the order. On perusal of the records, I find that the Registry of the Tribunal had fixed no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
