9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd penalty is waived for hearing of these appeals and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the appeals - Following decision of M. Ramakrishna Reddy, Civil Contractors v. CCE & C, Tirupathi [2008 (10) TMI 115 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] and CCE, Hyderabad v. Vijay Leasing Company [2010 (12) TMI 782 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - Stay granted. - ST/1824/2010, 9/2011 - Stay Order Nos. ST/660-661/2011(PB) - Dated:- 26-9-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Shri O.P. Agarwal, C.A., for the Appellant. Shri Amrish Jain, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants in both the cases during the period from 2002-2003 to March, 2006 were providing the following services to Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. - (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10, dated 30th August, 2010 in the case of M/s. Arvind Kumar Company and order-in-appeal No. 351/JPR- 11/2010, dated 21-9-2010 in the case of M/s. Rohani Sharmik Theka Sahakari Samiti Ltd. held that while during the period prior to 16-6-2005, the activity of the appellants was not taxable as Cargo Handling Service, w.e.f. 16-6-2005, their activity was taxable under the heading Site formation and clearance excavation and earth moving demolition services . The Commissioner (Appeals), accordingly upheld the service tax demands w.e.f. 16-6-2005 along with interest and also upheld the imposition of penalty on them under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. Against these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), these two appeals have been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posit of Service Tax demands, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of these appeals and recovery thereof may be stayed till the disposal of these appeals. 2.2 Shri Amrish Jain, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, opposed the stay application and reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned orders-in-appeal, pleaded that the activity of the appellants had been correctly classified as Site formulation and demolition service , which was taxable during the period of dispute w.e.f. 16-6-2005. In support of his contention, he also cited the Board s Circular No. 232/2/2006-CX.4, dated 12-11-2007 wherein it had been clarified that excavation/drilling and removal of the overburdens are taxable under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
