2012 (8) TMI 752

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ank Garg for the Appellant. B.L. Soni for the Respondent. ORDER Mathew John, Technical Member - The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of VP sugar and molasses. For their manufacturing activity, they collected sugarcane from farmers at various collection centres. They engaged individual farmers for transportation of sugarcane from collection centres to the factory and paid charg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e period January 2008 to March, 2008 along with interest and penalties. Aggrieved by the adjudication orders, the Appellants had filed appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) who waived penalties imposed under Section 78 but confirmed penalty under Section 77 and no relief has been given in the matter of service tax to be paid. Aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellants h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 65(105)(zzp) to a customer, by a goods transport agency, in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage." 3. He submits that since the sugarcane which was collected at the collection centres was already property of the Appellant. There was no need for any consignment note for despatching the same using the services of truck owners who were mostly individual firms. Therefore h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rucks and keep the truck idle except during sugar season. So if at all farmers are owning the trucks it is because they are undertaking goods transport operation as another profession. Therefore, the truck owners who transported sugarcane has to be at par with any other truck owners and the issue decided accordingly. 5. We have considered arguments on both sides. What we find is that the defini....