9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement availed by the appellant during the period in respect of GTA service - Held that:- amendment of definition of ‘cargo handling service’ which has a consequence on the demand has not been considered by the Commissioner probably because there was no defence put up on behalf of the appellant. Further, there were CBEC Circulars issued clarifying as to which activity is to be considered as cargo handling and which activity has to be considered as GTA service which were also not considered. Moreover, there is a finding by the Commissioner that the contract is composite. On going through the records and the billing process adopted by the appellant, it appears that the contract cannot be exactly called a composite contract. - there were two s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice and therefore appellant is liable to pay service tax during the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2009, service tax of more than ₹ 6.26 crores with interest has been confirmed and penalties under various sections of Finance Act have been imposed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the activity of the appellant within the port is treated as 'port service' and for transportation from the port to the warehouse and from warehouse to the railway sidings, the appellant/IPL have discharged service tax liability as GTA service receiver during the period. On packing activity, appellant has paid service tax under cargo handling service. The only objective with which the proceedings have been initiated and culminated in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider that it would not be appropriate for us to sit in appeal on an ex-party order which obviously would be based on the show-cause notice in the absence of any defence put up by the appellant. Therefore, we take up the appeal itself by dispensing with the requirement of predeposit for final decision. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel, we find that the most important aspect namely amendment of definition of 'cargo handling service' which has a consequence on the demand has not been considered by the Commissioner probably because there was no defence put up on behalf of the appellant. Further, there were CBEC Circulars issued clarifying as to which activity is to be considered as cargo handling and which activity has to be cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct. 5. In view of the above, we consider it appropriate that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority to consider the issue afresh. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on any of the issues even though we have considered certain aspects for the purpose of predeposit. We also make it clear that appellant should not delay the de novo adjudication proceedings and just because we have not put them to terms, the proceedings should not be prolonged. If the appellants do not cooperate in the adjudication, they will not get another opportunity like the present one. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
