9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.2024 alleging the order to be erroneous. 2. We have heard Shri Manmohan Mahipal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Kuldeep Rawat, learned Authorized Representative for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant - appellant has mentioned that the Tribunal did not decide on the nature of service/classification of service and the applicable rates thereupon. Nor the Tribunal has determined whether the tax liability in the present case was under Reverse Charge Mechanism and whether the appellant was liable to pay tax. Above all, there is no finding upon the question of eligibility of threshold exemption of the service provider. The order is accordingly, prayed to be rectified and the application is prayed to be allowed. 4. While ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transport agency, the same service is exempted under Sl. No. 22(b) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. I have gone through the copy of invoices submitted by the appellant along with appeal memo and it has been noticed that registration number of vehicle/truck and period of service has not been mentioned in such invoices, so it could not be ascertained what thing was given by the appellant on hire for providing transportation services. These invoices are not Bilties/GRs/consignment notes, therefore, benefit of payment of service tax by service recipients or those persons who paid freight under RCM as provided under Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 is not available to the appellant. Further, the appellant has also fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e departmental adjudicating authority have been affirmed by this Tribunal, the principle of merger applies vis-à-vis all the decisions. 9. In light of above discussion, we do not find any error, as alleged, in the impugned final order dated 28.06.2024 except for the aforequoted typographical omission vis-à-vis word "not" in para 5.1 of the impugned final order. 10. Another application has been filed by the respondent - department with a prayer that the name of the respondent from the present one be changed to : "The Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Commissionerate, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur." 11. Though this application should have been filed before the pronounceme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
