9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pe for a different understanding - the contention to look at the legislative history and read too many words into the legislation to give a different meaning could not be accepted - after considering the financial difficulties submitted, to strike a balance of convenience of the interest of both the parties – assesse was directed to make a pre-deposit of 25lakhs – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the final disposal – Decided partly in favor of assesse. - ST/575/11 - Misc. Order Nos. 41442-41443/2013 - Dated:- 7-6-2013 - SHRI. P.K. DAS AND SHRI. MATHEW JOHN, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri N. Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri K.S.V.V. Prasad, JC (AR) ORDER Per Mathew John; 1. In this proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Act 1994. The applicants had not paid any service tax on consideration received from PAPL during the period 2006-07 to 2008-09 (upto 30.9.08) for such service. Revenue was of the view that the service rendered by the applicant to PAPL was classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service in terms of clause 65 (19) (v) covering production or processing of goods for or on behalf of the client and applicant should have paid service tax on the consideration received for such services rendered to PAPL. Based on such reasoning a show cause notice was issued for service tax not paid. On adjudication of the SCN, an amount of Rs.1,08,64,129/- is confirmed against the applicant for the period 2006-07 to 2008-08 (upto 30.9.08) along with interest and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r this reason also, the demand is not sustainable. 7. The Ld. Advocate also raised the argument that they were under the bonafide belief that the activity was not taxable and the demand issued invoking extended period of time is not maintainable because there was no suppression with intention to evade payment of duty. He also pleaded financial hardship. 8. Opposing the prayer, Ld. AR for Revenue submits that there cannot be any dispute that effluents were transferred from PAPL to the applicant. He submits that effluents are goods. Such goods were processed by the applicant to change its character from something that would cause damage to environment to something that would not cause damage to environment. Therefore, he argues that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the company and hence extended period of time invoked is legally sustainable. 10. We have considered the arguments on both sides. Prima facie, we find force in the argument of the learned authorized representative for Revenue that the activity undertaken by the applicant is covered by the expression used in section 65 (19) (v) of Finance Act, 1994. When prima facie we do not see any scope for a different understanding, we are not inclined to look at the legislative history and read too many words into the legislation to give a different meaning. We are also not impressed by the argument raised by the learned counsel that this was a joint venture for treating effluents. The question of time-bar is debatable. 11. We are, prima facie, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
