9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Representative and perused the records. 3. The appellant herein is a manufacturer of Starch and gluten. On verification of the records of the appellant by the Anti evasion unit of the Division, the authorities found that the appellant had not discharged the service tax on the transportation of the goods by road under reverse charge mechanism. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued demanding service tax. It was also proposed to impose penalties under Section 76 & 77 of the Act. The appellant contested the demand on the ground that they are eligible for the exemption Notification No. 34/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004, as they had procured the materials from nearby and around the factory and the amount of charges paid for the transport per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand along with interest and imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the order, the appeal is filed before me for relief. 6. The appellant in his grounds of appeal reiterates the contentions made in their reply to the notice and submissions during the personal hearing before the Original Authority and request for relief. The appellant was heard on 12.08.2009 wherein they again reiterated the same submissions. They have not produced any further evidence except for the written submissions. 7. I have gone through the case records and the written submissions made by the appellant on the issue. I find that except for the rhetoric of the appellant at each stage in their submissions, they have not produced any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of exemption Notification; it is for them to prove that the benefit of this notification is available to them. In case of any doubt, the benefit of doubt will go to the Revenue as well as the Apex Court and Constitutional Bench in the case of M/s Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018 (361) ELT 577 (S.C)]. In this case the appellant has produced no proof to substantiate their claim that they are eligible for the exemption notification either before the Original Authority or before the First Appellate Authority or even in this appeal. We therefore find no grounds to hold that the appellant is eligible for exemption notification. The demand is therefore correctly levied along with the interest and the penalties are correctly imposed. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
