2012 (10) TMI 31 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax demand - cargo handling services - activity of loading, unloading, transportation and stacking of various iron and steel products alleged that appellant s activity fall under the category of cargo handling services SCN dtd. 02.04.03 to the appellant raising demand of duty for the period 06.08.2000 to 31.12.2002 - service tax was paid by the appellant prior to the issuance of the SCN Held that - The entire facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue and as such extended period was not available for issuance of demand. - demand to be barred by limitation. The activity of transportation and stacking was within the stockyard premises. Number of Tribunal s decisions have held that such activity cannot be held to be covered by the activity of cargo handling services .

Summary

Issues:
Service tax demand confirmation for cargo handling services, Interpretation of previous order confirming service tax only on loading and unloading, Contesting service tax demand on merits and limitation, Disclosure of separate bills and value of services in ST-3 returns, Invocation of extended period for demand, Activity of transportation and stacking within stockyard premises not covered under cargo handling services.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dealt with the confirmation of service tax demand against the appellant for providing services to M/s SAIL categorized as 'cargo handling services.' The initial Show-Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the department raised a demand for duty for a specific period, which was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the service tax but without imposing a penalty due to the appellant's bona fides.

The appellant contested the subsequent SCNs alleging service tax on transportation and stacking of goods within the stockyard, arguing that the earlier order only confirmed demand for loading and unloading services. The Tribunal noted the continuity of the contract with variations in terms and conditions, leading the appellant to pay duty specifically for loading and unloading post the Assistant Commissioner's order.

Regarding the invocation of the extended period for demand, the Tribunal held that the appellant could not be held guilty of suppression as the Revenue was aware of the facts from the earlier order. The Tribunal emphasized that the material facts must be suppressed with a guilty mind for the extended period to apply, which was not the case here, ultimately barring the demand by limitation.

Additionally, the issue of non-disclosure of separate bills and service values in ST-3 returns was addressed. The Tribunal found that since the entire agreement was previously scrutinized, the appellant's failure to reflect certain values in returns did not indicate mala fide intentions to evade tax. The judgment highlighted that the activity of transportation and stacking within the stockyard premises did not fall under 'cargo handling services,' citing relevant legal precedents to support this interpretation.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing both appeals with consequential relief to the appellants, and disposed of the cross-objections presented as written submissions.