TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r hearing both sides, I find that the Service Tax of Rs.1,42,019/- stand confirmed against the appellant for the period 1.1.05 to 31.3.07 by raising a show cause notice on 20.2.08 on the ground that during the said period, they have received the GTA services for inward as well as outward transportation and have not discharged their service tax responsibility as recipient of said services. 2. From....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same by extending the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that inasmuch as both the authorities below have not imposed any penalty under section 78, the said fact leads to the inevitable conclusion that there was no suppression on their part, in which case the longer period of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant to that effect. As regards the limitation, he submits that such fact was not being disclosed by the assessee and as such, longer period of limitation is available to the Revenue. He accordingly prays for rejecting the appeal. Without going into the disputed factual issue as to whether the service tax was being paid by the transporters or not, I find that the admittedly the lower autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e credit of the same. However, I find that appellants final product are assessable to duty under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, in which case, they will not be entitled to credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of the goods in terms of law declared by the Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Final Order No. 1680/2012-SM(Br) dated 21.12.2012. As it is not clear as to whether th....