9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant was liable to pay service tax as recipient of the service of Goods Transport Agency service. A demand of Rs.1,33,929/- for the period Jan'05 to Jan'09 was confirmed against the applicant by denying the abatement of 75% of the freight charges as provided in notification 32/2004 ST and 1/2006-ST for the reason that the applicant did not produce the documents showing that the transporter wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that he was complying with such conditions it should be reasonable to extend the benefit of such abatement. He submits that he had produced certificates in some cases before Commissioner (Appeals) who pointed out some defects in the certificates. He submits that he is in a position to produce certificates as requried. Where the service recipient is paying tax, this condition has to be construed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... document etc and could not be co-related to the consignments involved. 4. Considered the arguments on both sides. We find that applicant had submitted declarations in respect of different transporters and raised the argument that each of them was individual and none of them was registered with service tax department to take Cenvat credit. The Tribunal in the case of IOCL Vs. CCE-2012 (25) S.T.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
