2011 (9) TMI 789

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. - The appellants are manufacturers of corrugated boxes chargeable to central excise duty. During the period from September, 2004 to August, 2005, they received GTA services and paid service tax on it after availing the exemption under Notification No. 32/04-S.T., dated 3-12-2004. The department was of the view that they were not el....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs. 51,766/- was imposed under Section 78 and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), he vide Order-in-Appeal dated 30-9-2010 upheld the service tax demand along with interest and also the penalty under Section 78. However, the penalty under Section 77 was set aside. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Agency providing the GTA services and in this case, neither any general certificate had been produced to this effect nor there is any such certificate on the consignment notes issued by the GTA services provider. He, therefore, pleaded that the appellants were not eligible for benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. and, therefore, the duty demand against them has been correctly confirmed along ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce, the duty demand has been correctly confirmed against them along with interest and as such, there is no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings upholding the duty demand along with interest. However, as regards penalty, we find merit in the appellant's plea that there was no intention on their part to evade the service tax by wrongly availing the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-....