9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce has to be segregated and it is a divisible contract. This according to him is because Silo charges are collected because of a different Notification of Govt. of India. Even though we find some force in this argument, because of the definition of the service and service provider which we have discussed above, we feel that whether consideration of these arguments would affect the main clause or not would also require an in depth consideration and detailed analysis. Further in view of the complex issues involved when the legal aspects which we have discussed above, the Appellant also has a strong case as regards limitation - Prima facie case in favour of assessee - Stay granted. - ST/128/2010 and ST/299/2009 - Stay Order Nos. SP-249-250/KO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to anyone since the goods belong to the Appellant only and they are loaded when the Appellant continued to be the owner of the goods. Therefore there is no service provider and the receiver in this case hence Service Tax is not attracted. (d) Further the Appellant is engaged in mining of coal and selling the same, it is not a professional cargo handling agency. According to the definition of cargo handling service, the service provided by a cargo handling agency only is covered by cargo handling service definition and is liable to Service Tax. Since the Appellant is not a cargo handling agency, the service is not at all covered by the definition. (e) Further it was an omission on the part of the Appellants to have shown the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not attract Service Tax automatically. 4. The learned Commissioner (AR) submits that this is a case of clear misdeclaration, misstatement and suppression of facts. The Appellant was clearly aware that they are liable to pay Service Tax. He submits that in addition to Silo charges, there were several other charges numbering 6-7 and all these charges were included in the invoice. Only in respect of Silo charges separate invoice was raised and separate amount was collected separately and shown under the head other income till the investigation was taken up. 5. Further the sales tax for the period from December 2003 onwards was paid only after the adjudication order was passed in 2009. The fact that total sales tax paid was about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivities of cargo handling and would be liable to Service Tax. Obviously Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., the Appellant, cannot be considered a cargo handling agency. Their main business is mining of coal and selling the same as claimed by the learned counsel for the Appellants. Under these circumstances when the Appellant is not a cargo handling agency, whether Appellant would still be liable to pay Service Tax requires detailed consideration and this requires consideration of legal precedents and law. Prima facie in our view, to attract levy of Service Tax for cargo handling, the service provider has to be a cargo handling agency which is to say the main business must be cargo handling. We are also of the view that the nature of the contract als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
