2023 (11) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...."; during the course of the audit of records of the appellants, it was noticed that during the period April 2005 to March 2008, they have incurred expenditure on account of amounts, paid to Rice millers, which included payment towards transportation, from the premises of millers to the godowns of FCI, @Rs.5 per quintal and that they have not discharged service tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism. It was also noticed that there was a difference in the amounts incurred on Transportation Services between the ST-3 Returns and Trial balance. Thus, a show-cause notice dated 13.10.2010 was issued to the appellants seeking to recover service tax amounting to Rs.5,37,036/- along with interest and penalty; the proposal in the show-cause notice dated was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are not GTA is not substantiated as the sample receipts/ bills submitted by the appellant do not bear the dates or complete details of the transporters; moreover, whatever be the capacity of the goods transport operators, the obligation to pay duty was on the appellants; they have not submitted any other proof including the contract, if any, with the millers to substantiate their claim. He further submits that the facts became known to the Department only after conducting of an audit and therefore, extended period has been rightly invoked. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the show-cause notice does not specify as to how the transportation charges have been arrived at for the purpose of showcause notice....