9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their case along with all admissible documents - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No.70749 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 71826/2019 - Dated:- 31-10-2019 - HON BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, Advocate for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Authorized Representative for Respondent ORDER PER : ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. LKO/EXCUS/000/COM/ST/068/2017-18 dated 22 March, 2018 passed by Commissioner, CGST Central Excise, Lucknow. 2. Brief fact of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of trailers from M/s Tata Motors and payments were also received from M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Therefore, it appeared to Revenue that appellants were providing supply of tangible goods service and therefore, a demand of Central Excise Duty of around ₹ 2.42 crore under the category of supply of tangible goods was raised against the appellant to the said show cause notice. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through impugned Order-In-Original where the demand was confirmed with equal penalty and some other penalties were also imposed upon the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and he ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des and on perusal of record, we note that learned Adjudicating Authority has observed in Para 7.5 as follows:- 7.5) In view of above, the contention of the party that they issue consignment note is untenable. Party has submitted an agreement bearing date 28th day of May 2014 but the same is not only incomplete but unsigned by any of the parties involved. Therefore, cognizance of this document in any proceeding would not be proper. From the above, I am of the opinion that the party is creating confusion and their both versions are far away from the truth. Further, The party has not contradicted the allegation in respect Supply of Tangible Goods instead they have tried to establish that they are not liable to pay Service Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
