2019 (5) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndarajan, AC (AR) ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar After hearing both sides, we find that the dispute in this matter concerns demand of service tax on reverse charge basis on transportation of goods of the appellants for the period 01.01.2005 to 31.01.2009, on the freight expenditure incurred by them to the extent of Rs. 14,03,485/-. Department initiated proceedings vide a SCN dated 03.03.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ransporters to the effect that they have not availed Cenvat credit of duty for providing taxable service and also benefit of Notification No. 12/2003. 2.2 Ld. Advocate draws our attention to para-6 of the impugned order to submit that while the Commissioner (Appeals) has acknowledged the submission of the said declarations by them, he has however not accepted the same, on the ground that they a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....kul Refoils & Solvents Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rajkot 2012-TIOL-1965-CESTAT-AHM 5. Micromatic Grinding Technologies Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 355 (Tri.-Del.) 2.4 Ld. Advocate also submits that appellants had paid up the tax liability of Rs. 32,564/- after taking 75% abatement under the Notification No. 32/2004-ST and No. 1/2006-ST. The SCN has however demanded service tax liability on the entire 100% v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng terms. i) Appellants are eligible for 75% abatement in line with Notification No. 32/2004-ST and No. 1/2006-ST. ii) The amount of Rs. 32,564/- paid up by the appellants along with interest after availing such abatement of 75% is sustained and no interference is made with the matter. iii) However remaining part of the demand in the impugned order cannot sustain and is ....