9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (AR) PER : P R Chandrasekharan The appeal is directed against Order-in-Original no. 05/MS(05)Commr/RGD/07-08 dated 18.04.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad. 2. The appellant M/s Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. are running a Container Freight Station (CFS) at Navi Mumbai. They are registered with the department for the taxable service of 'Storage & Warehousing' and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has discharged the Service Tax liability on them separately and, therefore, the impugned demand is not sustainable. However, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest thereon and also imposed equivalent amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Order no. A/1191/13/CSTB/C-I dated 28.05.2013, where in similar circumstances, it was held that if the cargo handling charges and transportation charges are shown separately in the bills raised, the appellant is liable to discharge Service Tax liability only on cargo handling service and on the transportation charges, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rification issued by the Board applies even to the facts of the present appeal. Since the appellant has discharged the Service Tax liability on both these services, the question of leviability of Service Tax on whole amount under one taxable service of Cargo Handling is not sustainable in law. 7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
