9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Naveen Kumar and Anirudha R.J. Nayak, Advocates, for the Appellant. Smt. Joy Kumari Chander, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 68/2007-CE dated 20-2-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. 2. S/Shri K.S. Naveen Kumar and Anirudha R.J. Nayak, the learned Advocates, appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of "Extraordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme" and discharged the Service tax liability with interest. They challenged the levy of penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal by reducing the demand of interest to the extent of delayed payment of service Tax leviable on the so called reimbursed expenses. Penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 77 were also reduced to the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid services is given in the letter of Grasim to the appellants. In terms of the said agreement, the amount to be paid is split up into 3 categories. Rake handling (consisting of loading, unloading expenses) at Rs. 20/- per MT; local transportation charges (from yard to godown) at Rs. 53/- per MT and Service Charges Rs. 4/- per MT. It is the contention of the appellant that the rake handling charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aordinary Tax Payer Friendly scheme is not applicable to the appellant. In our view, this approach of the Revenue is not correct. Since the appellant had registered under the scheme, the benefit should not be denied. The Tribunal, in the case of CCE, Bhopal v. Bharat Security Services and Worker's Cont. - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 703 (Tri.-Del.) = 2005 (188) E.L.T. 454 (Tri-Del.), has held that the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
