2018 (8) TMI 480 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – GTA Service – case of appellant is that the service tax pertaining to the GTA service in respect of transport invoices issued by the transporter, had also been paid by the transporter – Held that:- The ld.Advocate further submits that there is no discrepancy in the figure of ₹ 13,261/- upto 30th June, 2012, but the demand of ₹ 59,349/- for the balance period, should be ₹ 38,848/- only. Since, the service tax to that extent had been charged by the transporter, which was duly paid by the appellant assessee. This fact has to be verified by the adjudicating authority.
–
The penalty imposed under Section 77 (1)(c)(ii) and Section 78 by invoking the provision of Section 80 is set as
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ure to pay service tax under the category of transport of goods by road under reverse charge. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax of ₹ 1,37,225/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Section 77 (1)(c)(ii). On Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order and confirmed the demand of service tax of ₹ 59,349/- along with interest. He reduced the penalty amount under Section 78 of the said Act to ₹ 59,349/- and also upheld the penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Section 77(1)(c)(ii). Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
taxation on behalf of the appellant and contrary to the provisions of the Statute. The ld.Commissioner (Appeals) verified the entire invoices and payments for the period as follows : 2009-2010 20110-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Rs.16,425/- Rs.23,035/- Rs.25,155/- Rs.13,261/- (upto 30.06-12) Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the demand of service tax is not sustainable in the present appeal and he modified the demand to the extent of ₹ 59,349/- for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013. The ld.Advocate for the appellant submits that there is a discrepancy in the amount of service tax as confirmed by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals). He has filed copies of statement of carriage inward for the period 2012-2013. The ld.Advocate fu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =