2013 (12) TMI 1179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R Per P.K. Das; 1. The applicant is engaged in providing 'Goods Transport Agency Service'. The original authority confirmed the demand of tax of Rs.8,85,321/- along with interest and penalty on the ground that they have issued consignment notes to M/s. Ringo Cargo Care, which is a proprietorship concern, and therefore the applicant is liable to pay tax on the GTA service. The Commissioner (A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs CCE Andhra Pradesh 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC) and therefore the demand is barred by limitation. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR submits that applicant had not mentioned the importer's name in the consignment notes. He further submits that in the present case, consignment notes would indicate the name of M/s. Ringo Cargo Care who is the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot covered in clause (a) to (g) of the said Rule. In the present case, the applicant has not mentioned the name of the importers in the consignment note and prima facie, the applicant is liable to pay tax. Therefore, the submission of ld. consultant about the fact that they have disclosed the name of the importer would be looked into at the time of appeal hearing. It is also seen that Commissioner....