TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is not eligible for exemption notification - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. ST/939/2009 - A/31387/2018 - Dated:- 29-10-2018 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) None for the Appellant. Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P. Venkata Subba Rao This appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No. 95/2009 (V-I) ST dated 24.09.2009. When this appeal was called, none appeared for the appellant. As the appeal is of 2009 and had already been listed several times, we proceed to decide the issue on merits. 2. Heard Learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. 3. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -ST dated 31.12.2004 was available only if the conditions in the Notification are met and as the appellant had not furnished any documents to this effect and therefore concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the abatement as per the Notification. The appellant could not produce any documentary evidence showing that the charges were less than ₹ 1500/- and in the absence of such evidence, the exemption Notification No. 34/2004-ST dated 31.12.2004 was not applicable to them and as the appellant had not disclosed the details to the Department and the same was unearthed by the Department on verification of records and hence had suppressed the facts. The impugned order therefore confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gross amount charged on individual consignments transported goods does exceeds of ₹ 750/-. The appellant has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim that they were eligible for exemption Notification before the Original Authority as well as before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore no benefit can be given to them. 6. We have considered the arguments in the appeal as well as the submissions made by the Learned Departmental Representative. The only point of contention is whether the appellant is eligible for an exemption Notification No. 34/2004-ST which gives exemption to Service Tax had GTA services subject to the condition the amounts paid do not exceeds the threshold therein. The appellant is claiming th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
