TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit on service tax paid on GTA or not. As far as interest liability is concerned, the appellant is liable to pay the interest as promised by the appellant before the Commissioner (A). As far as penalty is concerned, in view of the facts and circumstances enumerated above, I am of the view that appellants are not liable to pay the penalty and therefore, I set aside the penalty imposed by the learned Commissioner (A). Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/20089/2015-SM - 21071/2017 - Dated:- 17-7-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Ms. Neetu James, Advocate - For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS Garg The present appeal is directed against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed demand of ₹ 4,77,020/- along with interest and imposed a penalty of ₹ 4,77,020/- on them. Aggrieved by this, they preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (A), Mangalore, who vide the OIA dated 31.10.2012 had rejected the appeal filed by them by holding that their plea of availment of CENVAT credit on GTA as input services is not tenable and also that they have failed to produce documentary evidence to show that they have suffered the freight and insurance up to the customer's place and upheld the earlier order. Aggrieved by this, they had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.25440/2013 dated 14.6.2013 ordered them to pre-deposit an amount of ₹ 1 lakh and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Final Order No.20186/2016 dated 21.9.2016 and Final Order No.21212/2016 dated 9.11.2016 wherein it has been held that issue of denial of CENVAT credit on outward transportation of goods to the customer premises is no longer res integra. This issue is covered in favour of the appellant by various decisions as mentioned herein below: Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur: 2014 (307) ELT 3 (Chhattisgarh) Lafarge India Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2014 (307) ELT 7 (Chhattisgarh) Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2015 (37) STR 364 (Tri. -Del.) Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2015 (40) STR 645 CCE Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.: 2016 (44) STR 227 (Kar.) 4.1 She further submitted that the transaction undertaken by the appellants a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 2013-TIOL-671-HC-ALL-CX Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.: 2014 (299) ELT 431 (All.) 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the various decisions relied upon by both the parties, I find that the appellant before the Commissioner (A) has categorically conceded the service tax liability and has paid the entire service tax amount of ₹ 4,77,000/- and also promised to pay interest in due course which of course has not yet been paid. Further, I also find that in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (A) has recorded the factum of admission by the appellant and thereafter, the learned Commissioner (A) has not given any findings whether the appellant is entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to evade duty more so when it has been consistently held by various courts that the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit on GTA service. As far as contesting the liability on merit is concerned, I am of the view that at this stage, the appellant is barred from contesting the same after having conceded the liability before the Commissioner (A). As far as interest liability is concerned, the appellant is liable to pay the interest as promised by the appellant before the Commissioner (A). As far as penalty is concerned, in view of the facts and circumstances enumerated above, I am of the view that appellants are not liable to pay the penalty and therefore, I set aside the penalty imposed by the learned Commissioner (A). Consequently, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
