9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m port area to importer s premises, appellant is indicating the amount separately as transportation charges, on which after receiving payment, appellant discharged the service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism. Appellant has also made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit on the ground of limitation, as the show cause notice dated 02.11.2010 was issued by the department indicating the same services for the same period under GTA services hence, invoking extended period again the show cause notice dated 15.11.2012 - Following decision of R.K. Transport Company vs. CCE, Raipur [2012 (3) TMI 271 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - Stay granted. - Appeal No. : ST/13270 of 2013 - ORDER No. M/15563 / 2013 - Dated:- 13-11-2013 - Mr. M.V. Ravindr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the 2006-07 to 2009-10 in the said show cause notice. It is his submission that in the current show cause notice dated 15.11.2012, for the same period and for the same services, service tax is demanded under the category of Cargo Handling services. It is his submission that the second show cause notice is clearly time-barred. On merits, it is his submission that appellant has been issuing consignment notes for the timber logs which has been transported from Port Area to importer s premises and brings to our notice the various consignment notes issued by them. He would also bring to our notice the invoices issued by the appellant. He would take us through the consignment notes and submit that appellant had billed separately for transport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the accounts executives of appellant in his statements clearly indicated that appellant is not any issuing any lorry receipt or consignment notes. He would also assail the consignment notes on the ground that the said consignment notes indicate the service tax liability to be discharged by him and the said consignment notes are prepared improperly. It is his submission that the evidence has been rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground of there being incorrect particulars and incorrect issuance of consignment notes added to the fact that accounts executive of appellant has stated that they were not issuing the consignment notes. It is his submission that loading and unloading of timber logs is the dominant nature of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
