2014 (2) TMI 1086

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case, fly ash is produced by the Nasik Thermal Power Station. The appellant does not process or produce fly ash at all. They merely collect the fly ash from Nasik Thermal Power Station and delivers the same at the premises of his client M/s. Dirk India Ltd. in the vehicles given by M/s. Dirk India Ltd. Thus, the service is more appropriately classifiable under Cargo Handling Service and not under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned order a service tax demand of Rs.9,23,092/- has been confirmed against the appellant M/s. Jay Enterprises for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 classifying the services rendered by them to M/s. Dirk (India) Ltd. as Business Auxiliary Service. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the agreement entered into between the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant themselves have been classifying the service under Business Auxiliary Service and discharged service tax liability and, therefore, there is no reason why for the period 2005-06 the service should not be classified as Business Auxiliary Service and service tax demand confirmed. He further submits that the appellant did not appear before the adjudicating authority when the case was listed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X