M\/s Jyoti Petrochem Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Service Tax II Kolkata
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 480 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 20-3-2018
S.T. Appeal No.76894\/17 – FO\/75641\/2018
Service Tax
SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
\nShri Akshat Agarwal, Adv. for the Appellant (s)
\nShri A.K. Biswas, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue (s)
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P. K. Choudhary:
\nThis is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order-in- Appeal No.36\/HWH\/ST\/2017-18 dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata.
\n2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the show-cause notice dated 13.04.14 was issued for the period 2009-2010 to 2012- 2013 for <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n in receipt of the show-cause notice and accordingly, there was no occasion either to reply to the show-cause notice and no notice of personal hearing was received by them. They could know about the entire proceedings after the adjudication order was received by them on 10.03.2017. The adjudication order was passed ex parte. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n submits that there is no discrepancy in the figure of Rs. 13,261\/- upto 30th June, 2012, but the demand of Rs. 59,349\/- for the balance period, should be Rs. 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Jyoti Petrochem Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Service Tax II KolkataService Tax2018 (8) TMI 480 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 20-3-2018S.T. Appeal No.76894\/17 – FO\/75641\/2018Service TaxSHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Akshat Agarwal, Adv. for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K. Biswas, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue (s) ORDER Per … Continue reading “M\/s Jyoti Petrochem Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Service Tax II Kolkata”<\/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-13142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13142","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=13142"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13142\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed 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, which in turn, was paid by the appellant to the transporter. It is his observation that demanding the same again from the appellant would tantamount to double taxation on b<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. In view of the above discussion, I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 77 (1)(c)(ii) and Section 78 by invoking the provision of Section 80. Regarding service tax demand of Rs. 59,349\/-, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the submissions of the appellant. Needless to mention, a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the appellant.
\n6. Appeal<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n