9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of COAL HANDLERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-I [ 2004 (5) TMI 5 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] wherein it was held that the identical services are classifiable under clearing and forwarding agent service. Since this very judgement which is sole basis of the Commissioner (Appeals) order which has been set aside and party s appeal was allowed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, it is opined that since the identical facts and law point is involved, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has to reconsider the matter in the light of the change of legal position between the Tribunal s decision in Coal Handlers and the Apex Court decision in M/S. COAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RANGE KOLKATA I [ 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Sikka TPS. The appellants were paying service tax from 10.09.2004 on Loading Supervision Charges and from 16.06.2005 on Commission received for pre-payment of Railway Freight under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. The issue of classification of services provided by the appellants to GSECL was examined as to whether the services provided by the appellants were classifiable under the category of Clearing Forwarding Agent Service or under Business Auxiliary Service. Accordingly, it was concluded that the services provided by the appellants to GSECL to be classified under Clearing Forwarding Agent Service and is taxable from 16.07.1997. Accordingly, a Show cause Notice dated 31.03.2009 was issued to the appellant which was adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the present case involved mix question of law and facts. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the matter relying on the Tribunal s decision in the case of Coal Handlers (supra) wherein it was held that the identical services are classifiable under clearing and forwarding agent service. Since this very judgement which is sole basis of the Commissioner (Appeals) order which has been set aside and party s appeal was allowed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that since the identical facts and law point is involved, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has to reconsider th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
