TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3-12-2004 while the adjudication order confirms the demand on a different ground namely that the abatement is available only if conditions set out in Board’s circular are satisfied which the assessee did not satisfy. In the light of the decision of CCE & C v. Kanaka Durga Agro Oil Products (P.) Ltd. [Final Order Nos. 527 & 528 (Bang.) of 2008, dated 12-3-2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax on the ground that the assessee, recipient of services, were not liable to claim abatement in terms of Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3-12-2004 while the adjudication order confirms the demand on a different ground namely that the abatement is available only if conditions set out in Board's circular are satisfied which the assessee did not satisfy. Therefore, the demand cannot be sustaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 528 (Bang.) of 2008, dated 12-3-2009] holding that there is no liability on a recipient of service in cases of transportation undertaken by the individual truck operators and not by Goods Transport Agencies, to pay service tax, is squarely attracted. Following the ratio of the above decision, and for the reason set out earlier namely that the demand confirmation is on a ground not raised in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
