Hydromet (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 826 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 6-7-2018
Appeal No. ST\/40973\/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 41948\/2018
Service Tax
Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
\nShri M. Kannan, Advocate For the Appellant
\nShri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Madhu Mohan Damodhar
\nThe facts of the case are that proceedings were initiated against the appellant alleging that service tax liability in respect of GTA service availed by them had not been discharged. Show cause notice dt. 23.05.2016 was issued to them, inter alia proposing dema<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n roviders and therefore no further liability can accrue on them as has been held in a number of Tribunal decisions relied upon by him and also had prayed for a remand of the matter to the original adjudicating authority. However the same was not considered by the Commissioner. Ld. Advocate reiterates the same request before us today relying upon case laws in CST Meerut Vs Geeta Industries P. Ltd. – 2011 (220) STR 293 (Tri.-Del.) and Mandev Tubes Vs CCE Vapi – 2009 (16) STR 724 (Tri.- Ahmd.) and also CBEC Circular No.341\/18\/2004-TRU (Pt.) dt. 17.12.2004 (para 5.7 of CBEC circular). Ld. Advocate submits that appellants are in a position to submit all necessary evidence to establish that the tax liability has indeed been discharged by the servi<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Hydromet (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer CommissionerateService Tax2018 (9) TMI 826 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 6-7-2018Appeal No. ST\/40973\/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 41948\/2018Service TaxShri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri M. Kannan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, … Continue reading “Hydromet (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate”<\/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-13748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13748","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=13748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n