9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mises of the JCT. By entertaining a view that such services rendered by the appellant fall under the category of Cargo Handling Services leviable to services tax w.e.f. 16.08.2002, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 16.09.2007, raising demand of duty of Rs. 6,94,309/- for the period 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 along with proposal to impose penalties. On adjudication, the original adjudicating authority observed that inasmuch as the appellant did not get themselves registered under the said category and did not file any returns etc., they have indulged in suppression and by justifying invocation of the longer period of limitation, he confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough the impugned order, we find that as per the allegation of the department, the appellant provided the service to M/s JCT Ltc. by way of handling, loading, unloading the cargo/material in the factory premises. The appeal stands rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) by observing that the appellant has not provided any evidence on record except a contract dated 25.10.2005 awarded to them by JCT for internal handling and movement of raw material, finished goods, husk feeding and misc. jobs. 6. We find that even in terms of the said contract, services to be provided by the appellant were internal movement of the cargo in the factory of the JCT. There is no dispute on the above scope of the services provided by the appellant. The legal issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to their date of registration. 8. Apart from above, we also note that the demands were raised by invoking longer period of limitation. No specific instances or evidence of any suppression or mis-statement with a mala-fide intention stands attributed to the appellant, except a bald statement that they did not get themselves registered and did not follow the due procedure, so as to justifiable invoke the longer period of limitation. The service tax law was at ascent stage and there was a lot of confusion within the service industries as also with the Revenue. In the absence of any evidence to reflect upon any positive action on the part of the assessee, we are of the view that invocation of longer period by the Revenue was not justified. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
