9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. ORDER Per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar As the issue involved in both the appeals being the same, they are heard together and disposed by this common order. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were discharging their service tax liability under the category of Goods Transport Agency Service. During the period under dispute ie., from October 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es under Sections 76 & 77 of the Act. After due process of law the original authority confirmed the demands proposed in the SCN. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original adjudicating authority. Hence these appeals. 2. On behalf of the appellant-assessee, Ld. Counsel Ms. Cynduja Crishnan appeared and submitted that the appellant is not contesting the service tax liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x liability. However, it is seen that the short-payment occurred was due to the mistaken belief on the part of the appellants that in terms of Notification, the balance 25% of the taxable value is to be taken as cum-tax value. The issue of taxability with regard to GTA service had undergone number of changes in the initial years and there was understandable confusion on various aspects. Hence, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
