9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Appellant. Shri Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. During the period from April 2005 to March 2007, M/s. Areva had paid Service tax for GTA services only on 25% of the value, availing abatement of 75% from the gross freight value under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 and No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 has been availed. 4. The tax demand was confirmed against the respondents on the ground that they had not produced evidence in the form of declaration from the GTA. The matter had travelled upto the Tribunal in the first round and by order dated 6-8-2008 the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh in terms of the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e abatement allowed by the adjudicating Commissioner has been wrongly allowed. Under the statutory provisions, only when the Committee of Chief Commissioners comes to a conclusion that an order is not legal or proper it can authorize filing an appeal against the same. To come to such a conclusion, the Committee must do its own fact finding and come to a firm conclusion regarding the order reviewed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has dropped a total demand of about Rs. 1.90 Crores but the Committee of Chief Commissioners has not provided any documentary evidence on the basis of which the Tribunal can either modify the adjudicating Commissioner's order or confirm any part of the said demand of Rs. 1.90 crores. 6. The other ground taken by the Committee is that the Board's Circular dated 21-8-2008 should have been appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
