2017 (11) TMI 656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Absent on call, for Appellant Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR, for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The Appellant is 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 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd penalties and an amount of Rs. 2,90,003/- was confirmed for the period January, 2008 to March, 2008 along with interest and penalties. Aggrieved by the adjudication orders, the Appellant 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. Aggrie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....goods by road and issues consignment note by whatever name called Section 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 s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ansport activity in general cannot be true because nobody can invest in trucks 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 have to be at par with any other truck owners and the issue decided accordingly. 5. W....