2015 (10) TMI 2462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ate For the Respondent : Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR ORDER Per Justice G. Raghuram : The appeal is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur-II, dated 27.12.2013, which substantially rejected an appeal preferred against the primary adjudication order dated 25.08.2008. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for having provided Cargo Handling Service to M/s. Raj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Act was however set aside since penalty under Sections 76 and 78 were imposed. 3. The appellant undertook the work relating to unloading of the mineral rock phosphorous from railway wagons in RSMML railway siding and stacking the mineral thereafter on the companys site by employing labour. Since loading and loading and packing or unpacking of cargo falls within Cargo Handling Service under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... igh Court in Coal Carriers Vs. CCEEST, Bhubaneswar [2011 (24) STR 395 (Ori.)]. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not see a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Hence, we direct the appellant to remit the entire assessed tax liability along with the proportionate interest thereon (excluding the penalty component), within 4 weeks from today and report compliance by 23-10-2015. On de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X