9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that it is for loading and transportation of clinkers and rate for transportation is far higher than that for loading. In any transportation, loading and unloading is incidental and, therefore, the predominant and essential nature of service is transportation and not ‘Cargo Handling'. - Prima facie case against the assessee - directed to make predeposit of 50% of demand. - ST/412/2011 - S/196/13/CSTB/C-I - Dated:- 6-2-2013 - P R Chandrasekharan And Anil Chaudhary, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr N A Nyalkalkar, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms D M Durando, Dy. Commissioner (AR) Per: P R Chandrasekharan: The appeal and stay application are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PII/AC/16/2011 dated 28/02/2011 passed by the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -payment of service tax. Secondly, it is argued that the service is classifiable under Cargo Handling Service' and, therefore, the demand of service tax under GTA is not sustainable. The third argument is that, even if it is held to be classifiable within the category of GTA service, they will be entitled to benefit of Notification No. 34/2004-ST dated 03/12/2004 which exempts service tax if the transportation charges paid for a consignment is less than Rs. 750/-. Accordingly, he pleads for waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged. 3.1 The learned Dy. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue submits that even though the audit was conducted in 2007, the appellant was asked to furnish details and in spite of repeated reminders, they submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment and this information was suppressed form the department. Further, even thought the same was noticed during the audit, the appellant was asked to give details such as copies of the work orders, the amounts paid to the transporters and this information was submitted to the department only in December, 2009 and January 2010. In any case, demand for the period October 2008 to December 2009 is within the normal period of time. Further, time-bar is both a question of fact and question of law which can be considered only at the time of final disposal of the appeal. 4.2 As regards, the contention of the appellant that the service rendered is Cargo Handling' and not transportation', we do not find any merit in this argument. The work order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
