TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 958
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner, Raipur. The primary Authority confirmed service tax demand of Rs.9,65.507/- besides interest and penalty as stipulated, on the ground that the assessee had provided transportation of goods by road service. The appellate Authority concluded that the levy of service tax on delivery charges collected from the customers by engaging their own truck/carrier is not sustainable, particularly since the assessee had already remitted service tax on freight/delivery charges paid to the transporters/third party; and no further tax liability arises for the period in issue. Consequently, imposition of penalty and recovery of interest does not arise, ruled the appellate authority. 2. By this application, the respondent/assessee seeks rejection of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proper. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur and the Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur (the Committee) merely appended signatures on the note drawn up by Inspector (Review) and endorsed by the Supdt. (Review). 5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/assessee Shri Mittal contends that this process does not manifest or indicate application of mind, by the Committee. 6. In L.R Sharma (supra), this Tribunal considered several issues included whether the two Commissioners constituting the Committee should meet at the same place and time for recording an opinion as to desirability of Revenue filing an appeal. Another issue also considered was whether mere signing on a note drafted by officers of the department without a specific manifestation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and a further appeal should be filed against the same. 8. The issue as to how the opinion of the Committee of Commissioners should be recorded, whether mere appending of signatures on a note prepared by departmental officers is sufficient compliance with the requirement of due application of mind or whether there should be an affirmative signification of the satisfaction of the Committee as to desirability filing an appeal was neither in issue nor decided, in the above judgement. 9. In the circumstances, we do not consider the judgement of the Chhattisgarh High Court to have spelt out any principle which is at variance with the principle spelt out by the judgement of Delhi High Court in Kundalia In....