2018 (7) TMI 1837

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd 65 (105) (k) of the Finance Act, 1994 and had received an amount of Rs. 19,42,73,055/- for the period 01.04.2006 to July 2009, on which service tax liability of Rs. 2,29,69,664/- have not been discharged. SCN dated 27.07.2010 was issued proposing to demand and recover the service tax not paid and also imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order dated 30.05.2011 confirmed the proposed demand with interest and also imposed penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also penalty under Section 77 ibid. Hence the appellants are before this forum. 2.1 Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri T.R. Ramesh submits that i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rates by the sugar mill. The sugar mill, in turn, adjusts these charges from the amount it subsequently pays to the farmers/growers for supply of sugarcane. 3.2 Ld. AR submits that it is the very same earlier order 9/2011 dated 30.05.2011 which is the impugned order in the present appeal. In the circumstances, the subsequent order relied upon by the Ld. Advocate is by no means applicable to the present case. 3.3 Ld. AR also draws our attention to the decision of Shri Samarth Sevabhavi Trust (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Advocate to point out that the issue that came up for decision there in related only to the dispute on whether the assesse was a commercial concern or otherwise and whether there would be any tax liability on such ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 10.12.2009 sugarcane farmers have stated that the appellants appoint only the contractors to arrange for harvesting the sugarcane from the field on payment of cutting charges and payment of cutting charges as deducted from the amount payable for sugarcanes to the concerned farmers. However, from para 6.5 of the impugned order, it becomes evident that these statements given by the concerned farmers have been retracted during the course of cross examination. From page 130 of the appeal paper book, it is seen that pursuant to enquiries by the department by the Asst. Commissioner (Preventive), appellant's have interalia clarified that the sugar mill is not engaging the cane cutting labourers but that the sugarcane growers themselves fix ....