2011 (8) TMI 240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, Advocate appearing for the assessee and Shri Sonal Bajaj, SDR for the revenue.   3. As per facts on record M/s. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and were availing services of Goods transport agency by road . They were duly registered with the service tax department and were discharging Service Tax liability as recipient of the said services in terms of provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, by which the liability of payment of Service Tax in respect of GTA services stands shifted to the recipient of the said services.   4. While discharging their service tax liability on the GTA services, the appellant availed the benefit of Notification No. 34/2004 ST d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the notice along with confirmation of interest along with imposition of identical penalty in terms of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It may be clarified that demand was raised against the appellant only on 25% of the value of the service by extending the abatement of 75% in terms of notification No. 32/04 ST.   7. The said order was appealed against by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the issue for determination was whether the concession / exemption provided under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and 34/2004-ST both dated 3.12.2004 is available to the appellant or not. As regards the Notification No. 34/2004-ST, it was observed by the appellate authority that as in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner (Appeals), the matter would have ended and the appeal was required to be allowed.   9. However, it is seen that inspite of holding that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of notification No. 34/2004, the appellate authority, under a mistaken belief that Notification No. 32/2004 is also involved, denied the benefit of the same on the ground that the abatement to the extent of 75% of the value of taxable service cannot be extended inasmuch as there is no declaration by the service provider to the effect that credit has not been availed. As such, she held that benefit of Notification No. 32/2004 is not available. However, in respect of penalty, she reduced the penalty from Rs. 1,34,820/- to Rs.50,000/-.   10. T....