9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Additional Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per : B.S.V. Murthy; Two show-cause notices were issued to the appellant, the first one on 22.10.2009 and the second on 13.1.2011. In the first show-cause notice, an amount of Rs. 16,00,168/- was demanded towards service tax under the category of 'Storage and Warehousing Service' on the ground that appellant should have paid service tax on 'Soya Bean Meal st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Learned consultant submits that appellant has very strong case on limitation also and at this stage, he prays to consider the issue on limitation leaving the discussion on merits to the final hearing. On consideration of this submission, we find that the demand of Rs. 58,30,168/- is on the ground that the appellant utilised CENVAT credit in excess of 20%. Extended perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant notification, 'agricultural produce' has been defined to mean that it should be one on which no process has been done other than process undertaken by cultivator. In this case, the Commissioner has considered this and has held that 'soya bean meal' is residue of processing of 'soya bean' for extraction of oil. Therefore, we find, as per the definition of 'agriculture produce' in terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... storage and warehousing' charges. However, ongoing through the invoices, we find that what they charged is stock management charges for storing 'soya bean meal' and further, they charged in terms of quantity of 'soya bean meal'. The invoice does not mention actual space provided at all. Therefore, we find that appellants do not have a case on merits. Since the appellant exercised their own judgeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
