2018 (8) TMI 1587

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., DC (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The present appeal challenges the OIA No. 21/2011-ST (SLM) dated 18.03.2011. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a manufacturer of 'Sugar'. For manufacture of sugar, sugarcane is procured from the sugarcane growers. The appellant entered into an agreement with the sugarcane growers in terms of which the appellant arran....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rged on the consignment transported did not exceed Rs. 1,500/- and when the amount charged on individual consignment did not exceed Rs. 750/-, they availed the benefit of Notification No. 34/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. Revenue was of the view that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 34/2004 and issued SCN dated 12.04.2010 demanding the service tax without abatement. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervice credit. He submitted that even if the service tax is paid as demanded by the Revenue, the same will be available to the appellant as input service credit which leads to the situation of revenue neutrality. Under such circumstances, no allegation of suppression can be made against the appellant. He also submitted that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 34/2004 i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he record that for such consignments the appellant has assumed the role of the GTA and issued the "consignment notes". In terms of the Notification No. 32/2004-ST, the liability for payment of tax is cast on the person who is paying the freight. Since the appellant is paid the freight, the service tax liability has also been taken over by the appellant. 8.2 It is seen that the service tax liabi....