TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sportation and hence not liable to be charged to service tax. There are no force in their argument that they were under the bona fide belief that this amount was paid separately only towards transportation and hence not taxable because the agreement signed by the appellant and the invoices raised by them clearly indicate otherwise - the demand of service tax along with interest and penalties imposed in the impugned order are sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. ST/701/2009 - A/30034/2019 - Dated:- 1-1-2019 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri V. Ravindranath, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri N. Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner/AR fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 78. After following due process, the lower authority confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed a penalty under Sec.78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the first appellate authority who upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that additional demand which they have billed their clients was only towards transportation and hence cannot be charged as service charges for cargo handling services. Therefore, the demand along with interest and penalties need to be set aside. 5. Learned departmental representative draws the attention of the bench to Pg.49 to Pg.53 of the paper book which have the correspondence betwee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure for transportation and other expenses incurred for loading rakes at Marripalem siding . We find from the above that although the initial correspondence between the appellant and their client was only towards additional transportation costs but final agreement signed between the parties in the meeting as well as the subsequent invoices covered this amount towards transportation as well as other expenses incurred in loading of rakes at the new siding. We, therefore, are unable to agree with the appellant that the additional expenditure is only towards transportation and hence not liable to be charged to service tax. The appellants have not paid service tax on this amount and we do not find any force in their argument that they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
