2019 (7) TMI 769

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n demanded at Jaipur. 2. The appellant is manufacturer at Kolkata and registered both under Central Excise and Service Tax Department at Kolkata. At Jaipur they are registered under Central Excise as a registered dealer. The appellant transfer their finished product from Kolkata to their Branch at Jaipur. The freight for such transportation is paid by the Head Office at Kolkata which also deposits the service tax as the receiver of service as required under Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Show cause notice dated 26.07.2011 was issued for the period April, 2010 to September, 2010 by the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax Division at Jaipur demanding service tax of Rs. 2,72,894/- including cess alleging that the appellant branch of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant urges that it is admitted fact that the factory of the appellant and Head Office is situated at Kolkata, were registered under Central Excise and Service Tax. Further, invoice for freight charges from Kolkata to Jaipur branch has been raised on Kolkata Head Office which has paid the freight charges. Thus, appellant have not contravened the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 which requires payment of service tax by the recipient of service where the recipient is factory or limited company under the Companies Act. Further, the appellant had categorically stated that the freight has been paid by Head office at Kolkata and the service tax have been paid at Kolkata and proper declarati....