https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350522 Exemption under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T. could not be denied merely on allegations that freight charges were split to keep each consignment within the prescribed limit. The material showed consignment notes identifying the sender, receiver and quantity of goods, and freight was separately recorded by the transport agent. In the absence of clear evidence of deliberate fragmentation or manipulation, the Revenue's presumption was insufficient to displace the notification benefit. The denial of exemption was therefore not sustainable, and the appellants remained entitled to the benefit of the notification. en-us Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Nov 2017 11:00:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350522 Exemption under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T. could not be denied merely on allegations that freight charges were split to keep each consignment within the prescribed limit. The material showed consignment notes identifying the sender, receiver and quantity of goods, and freight was separately recorded by the transport agent. In the absence of clear evidence of deliberate fragmentation or manipulation, the Revenue's presumption was insufficient to displace the notification benefit. The denial of exemption was therefore not sustainable, and the appellants remained entitled to the benefit of the notification. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350522