9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature - demand of service tax - HELD THAT:- No doubt, as observed by the lower appellate authority, the name of the signatories who have issued certificates have not been indicated therein. However, there is no allegation made by the department about the genuineness of these documents. Exemption under Notification No. 32/2004-ST cannot be denied on such minor discrepancies. Appeal allowed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. In adjudication proceedings, the original authority vide order dated 31.03.2011 confirmed the demand and also denied the benefit of abatement of 75% under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and No.1/2006-ST, on the ground that there is no documentary evidence to establish that the appellants have not availed the credit of duty relating to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned without name or date. He submits copies of the said declarations under Notification No. 32/2004-ST by the concerned transporters and submits that these documents are all signed by the authorized signatory with stamp of the concern. The only inadvertence is the name of the signatory has not been indicated along with the signature. 2.3 Ld. Advocate submits that the issue is no lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire 100% value of the taxable service. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR supports the impugned order. 4.1 After hearing both sides, we find that the Ld. Advocate is correct in his assertions. No doubt, as observed by the lower appellate authority, the name of the signatories who have issued certificates have not been indicated therein. However, there is no allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remaining part of the demand in the impugned order cannot sustain and is required to be set aside, which we hereby do. iv) Since the matter was one of interpretation, imposition of penalty is unjustified. It is therefore ordered that while the tax liability to the extent of ₹ 32,564/- along with interest is sustained, the penalties imposed under Section 77 and 78 are set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
