9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1994. It is settled law that penalties under Sections 76 and 78 both cannot be imposed. Therefore we consider that penalty under Section 78 equal to the service tax demand upheld by us would meet ends of justice and penalty under Section 76 need not be imposed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 8,43,226/- with interest liable to be paid on these amounts has to be upheld as demanded. 3. We find that in addition to the above amounts of ₹ 15,026/- and ₹ 16,924/- have been demanded on the ground that the appellant has provided C&F Agency service. The details of these two demands are as under, as mentioned in the OIO and also giving conclusion therein. 11. Besides the above services, the assessee provided Custom House Agency Services in the year 2004-05 to Sri Bontha Srinivas, Visakhapatnam and M/s.Vijay Agro Products Ltd. In respect of Sri Bontha Srinivas, the assessee raised bill under the heads of Documentation, weighment, repacking, transportation charges, loading/ unloading charges and in respect of M/s Vijay Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods are cleared and therefore we find that the confirmation of demand is not sustainable. 5. As regards the item in paragraph 12, except for handling the cargo, repacking, shifting, loading and handling, appellants have not undertaken any other activity. It is difficult to consider this as a C&F agency service. The appellants do not undertake the responsibility of clearing and forwarding but have undertaken certain activities which we cannot consider as part of C&F agency service. Therefore, we consider that demand for ₹ 16,924/- also cannot be sustained. 6. In Paragraph 13 & 14, two more demands under storage and warehousing service and steamer agency service have been confirmed and the observation of the original authority are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that these demands are sustainable and we agree with the reasons given by the original authority. 7. In view of the above discussion except for the two amounts wherein we have allowed the appeal, in respect of remaining amounts demanded, impugned order is sustained and demand with interest for service tax is upheld. We also notice that penalty has been imposed under Section 76 as well as Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. It is settled law that penalties under Sections 76 and 78 both cannot be imposed. Therefore we consider that penalty under Section 78 equal to the service tax demand upheld by us would meet ends of justice and penalty under Section 76 need not be imposed. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. (Operative part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
