TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r notification No. 12/2003-ST dated20th June, 2003availed - appellants submitted that the appellants had not received service from Goods Transport Agency when the canes were transported by different local persons transporting sugar cans of agriculturists – Held that: - nothing coming out from the adjudication order to demonstrate that goods for and on behalf of the appellants were transported by G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty under Section 76 with interest levied on the demand. The Adjudication was made on the allegation that the appellants were availed services of goods transporter for transportation of cane from various cane industries and did not pay service tax on Goods Transport Service in respect of materials received in store/mill. Value of taxable service was determined to be Rs. 52,50,323/- and service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent local persons transporting sugar cans of agriculturists. Such transportation not being Goods Transport Agency, there shall not be any liability on them. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lakshminarayana Mining Co. v. C.S.T., Bangalore, reported in 2009 (16) S.T.R. 691 (Tri. -Bang.) and submitted that as an interim measure realization of service tax from the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
