9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of ‘agriculture produce’ in terms of the notification, storage of ‘soya bean meal’ in the appellants premises as ‘agricultural produce’, prima facie, cannot be accepted. - As regards limitation, we find that appellant simply claimed exemption without mentioning notification number or further details. Therefore, it would be appropriate to take a view that the appellant has exercised their own judgment to determine their eligibility for exemption - Mere collection of rent cannot be considered as ‘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 doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalties under various Sections of 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 period cannot be invoked since, in fact, appellant was filing ST-3 returns regularly which would show the CENVAT credit taken and utilised. In these circumstances, the appellant has made out a prima facie case in respect of this demand. 3. The second major amount is Rs. 16,00,168/- which has been demanded towards se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Board when service tax was introduced on 10 new services with effect from 16.8.2002 vide F. No. B11/1/2002-TRU, dated 1.8.2002. Mere collection of rent cannot be considered as 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 judgement, prima facie, extended period is invokable. In these circumstances, we consider that appellant is required to be put to terms. At this juncture, learned consult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
