2009 (11) TMI 355 - AT - Service Tax

Cargo handling service-dispute as to levy of the Service Tax. Show cause notice was issued. Levy operational from 16.8.2002 and circular issued by C.B.E & C. for series of doubts and confusions. No intention to evade service tax. Held that- extended period not invocable. Question of interpretation of law caused confusion to both sides. Case not to be held of intention to evade tax. Thus no penalty imposable.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of Service Tax on various activities including urea loading jobs, shifting and stacking of urea bags, and miscellaneous jobs.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the levy of Service Tax on specific activities such as urea loading jobs, shifting and stacking of urea bags, and miscellaneous jobs. The Appellant contested that these activities did not fall under the category of "cargo handling service." However, the Revenue relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support the tax liability. Both the Authorities below had already upheld the tax liability. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the contract and previous decisions, ultimately concluding that the activities constituted Cargo Handling Services, thus incurring Service tax liability.

The Tribunal noted a peculiar fact regarding the issuance of the show cause notice for a specific period. Considering the confusion and doubts surrounding the levy of Service tax during that period, the Tribunal found no intention on the part of the Appellant to evade tax liability. As a result, the Tribunal decided that the Appellant should not be held liable for periods that were already time-barred. The dispute was narrowed down to the normal period of limitation, as seen in similar cases decided by the Tribunal previously.

Regarding the question of penalty, the Tribunal referred to a previous judgment and concluded that in cases where the interpretation of the law caused confusion to both parties, it could not be considered as an intention to evade tax liability. Therefore, no penalty was deemed leviable for the normal period. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to re-determine the Service tax liability for the normal period and instructed them to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the tax liability for the activities in question as Cargo Handling Services. However, due to the lack of intention to evade tax liability and the confusion surrounding the period in question, the Appellant was not held liable for the time-barred periods. No penalty was imposed for the normal period, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for the re-determination of Service tax liability with interest, if applicable, providing the Appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case.