2018 (3) TMI 929

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hri Pravin Sharma (Advocate), for Appellant Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR, for Respondent Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The above stated three appeals are arising out of Common impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 186-188-ST/LKO/2012 dated 26/03/2012 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow. Therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. Brief facts of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pay service tax under said Rule with effect from date on which Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 was made operational. Therefore, the impugned Order-in-Appeal upheld the demand of service tax Rs. 2,04,764/-, Rs. 13,095/- & Rs. 5,596/- along with interest and equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. The Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds was service provider to the overseas exporter and the appellant has not paid transportation charges. He has further submitted that under clause (v) of said Rule 1 of Rule 2(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, such person is liable to pay service tax who pays freight. He has argued that they have not paid the freight, therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax. 4. Heard the Learned A.R. who h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X