TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of appellant. - ST/52643/2014-CU[DB] - 50893/2018 - Dated:- 23-2-2018 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present For The Appellant: Mr. A. K. Batra, Consultant Ms. Vibha Narang, Advocate Present For The Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jain, D.R. Per: B. Ravichandran The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2014 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur. The appellant is a Co-operative Society created by Govt. of Chhattisgarh, involved, among other things, in procurement and transport of food grains. The appellants procures paddy etc. from farmers through Co-operative Societies and thereafter transport s the same from procurement centres to the storage centres of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so contested on limitation. 3. It is submitted that the appellant is a Government Co - operative Society involved in implementing the Government policy for procurement and transport of food grains. There is no malafide to evade any tax and there is no motive for the same. As such the demand for extended period and penalties are not sustainable. 4. The ld. A.R. submitted that the appellants entered into agreement with various t ruck owners and there is nothing on record to say that the truck owners are not transport agent s. Further, the truck owners were paid on Kilometer basis for the goods transported. Such transport is covered by challan, gate pass, for due dispatch and receipt of the goods. He submitted the conditions for tax liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h various transporters. We note that the appellants submitted a chart stating that the bills raised by the transporters are on a periodical basis which contains details of quantum of grains transported, distance covered and No. of t rips. It would appear that the Revenue also is referring to such bills as could be seen in the assertion submitted vide letter dated 29.04.2015 as the said bill contains details of No. of trips. That being the case, the same cannot be considered as consignment note as multiple trips cannot be covered by single consignment note. In spite of the earlier specific query with reference to existence of consignment note, we note, no evidence could be produced by the Revenue. The appellant asserts the submitted facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
