9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth the sides have been heard in detail. 2. The matter concerns with the payment of service tax on the service of the transportation of the goods, where individual lorry owners - who are father and son provided the services to the appellant " (a partnership firm) and this partnership firm is made up of the same father and son who are the individual lorry owners. It is pointed out by the learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot liable to be charged. 2. The learned C.A. also argues that for the larger part of the liability i.e. about 90%, when father and son, who are individual lorry owners, have provided the services to the partnership firm/appellant, where the partners are same father and son, service tax is not liable. He further argues that they have already paid service tax and interest in full as established and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r payment of service tax and said service tax is paid by the recipient of such services only. He cites in support the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. K.M.B. Granites Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (35) S.T.R. 63 (Mad.)] saying that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras clarified that individual truck operators in case of transport services provided by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of transportation service was not very clear. In the light of the facts and pleading of the appellant and considering the provisions of Section 80(1) of Finance Act, 1994, it is held that the penalty imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 on the appellant is not sustainable. Consequently, the appeal is partially allowed by setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant by the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
