9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants have two units engaged in the manufacture of various types of footwear; the appellants availed the services of "Goods Transport Agency" (GTA) for transport of their product; the appellants did not pay, inadvertently, the service tax for the period 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2007 in respect of both the units. However, on being pointed out by the Revenue, the appellant deposited the service tax along with interest after claiming abatement as per Notification No.32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. Revenue seeks to deny the abatement on the grounds that the invoices issued by the GTA operators did not carry an endorsement to the effect that CENVAT credit has not been availed by them. Show Cause Notices dated 30.03.2009 and 27.03.2009 were issued dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PACKAGING COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX BANGALORE, SERVICE TAX-I 2019 (11) TMI 615 - CESTAT BANGALORE * BANNER PHARMACAPS (P) LTD. VERSUS CCE AND C 2009 (6) TMI 998-CESTAT AHMEDABAD * EXPORT GARMENTS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE 2009 (7) TMI 1084-CESTAT BANGALORE * M/S GARG TUBES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, GHAZIABAD 2018 (8) TMI 735- CESTAT ALLAHABAD * ALLEN DIESELS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2016 (2) TMI 247-DELHI HIGH COURT * M/S MUTUAL INDUSTRIES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, VAPI AND VICE-VERSA 2016 (1) TMI 889-CESTAT MUMBAI * LYKES LINE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-1 2016 (11) TMI 192-CESTAT MUMBAI * COMMR. OF SERV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX BANGALORE SERVICE TAX-12018 (8) TMI 1019 - CESTAT BANGALORE 5. Shri Raman Mittal, learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the condition laid down in the Notification No.32/2004 is understandably for the GTA Service providers, who pay service tax themselves. It is not applicable to the appellant who pays the service tax on GTA Services received on Reverse Charge basis. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Department is reading beyond the scope of the Notification. Moreover, we find that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. (supra) held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
