9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/579/12-Mum - Final Order No. A/1173/2014-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 2-7-2014 - S S Kang And P S Pruthi, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri M.H. Patil, Adv For the Respondent : Shri K.M. Mondal, Spl Counsel for Revenue PER : S. S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby a demand of service tax of ₹ 10,75,21,055/- is confirmed with interest and penalties were also imposed. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellants received consideration for providing the following taxable services:- (i) Break Bulk Fees in respect of cargo handling service covered under Section 65 (105) (ZR). (ii) Software cost for projects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vity undertaken by the appellant comes under transport of goods by air service'. In reply to show cause notice, the appellant specifically pointed out that as per the provisions of the Service Act, the appellant cannot be considered as an aircraft operator as the taxable service means any service provided or to be provided by any person to any person, by an aircraft operator, in relation to transport of goods by aircraft. The demand is confirmed in the adjudication order treating this activity as cargo handling service hence the impugned order is beyond the scope of show cause notice. The appellant also argued that the consideration which is in respect of BBF is in respect of exported goods hence the appellants are not even covered und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant was not accepted by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the same was not submitted during investigation. We find that vide letter dated 7.3.2010, the appellant supplied the details of payment of service tax to the Joint Director General of Central Excise Intelligence hence it cannot be said that the evidence regarding deposit of the service tax is not produced during investigation. The deposit of this amount requires verification by the adjudicating authority afresh. The adjudicating authority will decide the issue of consequential penalties after due verification regarding deposit of this amount. 9. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority in respect of ₹ 6,23,13,126/- for verification regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
