9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The fact of the case is that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. For this purpose, they had brought sugarcane which are transported by individual truck owner from sugarcane field to the factory. During the period October 2006 to April 2008, the appellant failed to discharge the service tax on GTA service. However, on pointing out by the departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime of issuance of show-cause notice. Therefore, the show-cause notice is illegal. In support, he relied upon the decision in the case of V.S.T Tillers Tractors 2009 (14) STR 159 (Tri-Bang). He further submits that entire service tax payable on GTA was available as Cenvat Credit in the hands of the appellant, therefore, the issue is of revenue neutrality. For this reason also there is no suppressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he findings in the impugned order. He submits that the appellants have not declared the service tax liability in their ST-3 returns, accordingly they have suppressed the facts. Therefore, penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was rightly imposed. In support he placed reliance on the following decisions: a) Padmashri V.V Patil SSK Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 23(Bom) b) Shri Ram Aluminium Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it on the service tax paid, demanded for which was raised in the present case. Therefore, the situation in the present case is of a Revenue neutrality. It has been held consistently by the Tribunal and Courts that in case of revenue neutrality, intention of evasion of duty cannot be alleged as neither there is a gain/loss to the revenue or to the assesee. The decisions cited by the rivals have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
