TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nagar, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri P.V. Sheth, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - All the appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has allowed the respondents' appeals. 2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri P.V. Sheth, learned Advocate and Shri Rajendra Na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Rules, 2004. Admittedly, the service provider is the goods transport agent of GTA and tax liability has been shifted to the respondent receiver of the services in view of the provisions of Section 68(2) of Finance Act, 1994, vide which they have been treated as "deemed provider of service". While examining the above condition, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the service provider of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of 75% abatement for the purpose of discharging service tax liability on the transportation charges shown in the transport document. Further, as seen from the show cause notice the amount of credit availed by the appellants were indicated which appears to be actually in relation to the credit availed on the inputs and other service and not the credit of inputs and capital goods/vehicles used of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em, was prescribed. 5. It is the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent that the period involved in the present appeal is prior to 27-7-05 and as such the requisite procedure as detailed in said Board's circular, cannot be held applicable in their case. Prior to the said date, there was no specific procedure laid down evidencing that no credit has been availed by G....