Tanfac Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry (Presently known as: The Commissioner of GST & CE, Trichy)
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 713 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 27-2-2018
Appeal No. ST\/549\/2010 – 40551\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate For the Appellant
\nShri S.Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
\nPer Bench
\nThe brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Fluoride, Hydrofluoric Acid, Sulphuric Acid, etc. On verification of the records, it was observed that the appellant had rendered advice, consultancy or technical assista<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Tanfac Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry (Presently known as: The Commissioner of GST & CE, Trichy)Service Tax2018 (6) TMI 713 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 27-2-2018Appeal No. ST\/549\/2010 – 40551\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate For the … Continue reading “Tanfac Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry (Presently known as: The Commissioner of GST & CE, Trichy)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12242","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld.CounceI, Sh.Hari Radhakrishnan submitted that the appellant has not received any consideration of the services, but has received only air ticket charges to the tune of Rs. 23,076\/-. He pleaded that the said amount is only reimbursed ticket charges. That there was no intention to evade payment of service tax and requested that the penalty may be set aside.
\n3. The Ld.AR, Shri S Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
\n4. On perusal of records, we find that a demand of Rs. 23,076\/- has been confirmed under the Management Consultancy Service. Though the appellant argues that this amount is not received towards consideration and the <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n