9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o March, 2005 was clearing and forwarding services rendered to the service taker and similarly service rendered by the Appellant through pipeline transportation of crude oil to Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. (BRPL) was "Business Auxiliary Services" rendered by the Appellant relating to the period September, 2004 to March, 2005. The impugned order dated 30th December, 2005 levied services and educational tax on the considerations received from both service takers as well as penalty levied under Section 75A, Penalty under Section 76, penalty under Section 77 and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 1.2 The ld. Adjudicating Authority on examination of the material, was of opinion that below described services were r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing services by Appellant to ONGC and BRPL through pipeline. But what that brings a difference is the nature of service which does not subscribe to view of ld. Adjudicating Authority for assessing the Appellant under the category of "Clearing and Forwarding Agency and as "Business Auxiliary Services" to ONGC and BRPL respectively when there was no law to hold against the Appellant. He submitted that Legislature brought out a specific entry w.e.f. 16.6.05 to bring transport of goods through pipeline or other conduit to the purview of service tax incorporating a new Sub-clause (zzz) to Section 65 (105) of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, according to him, when there is a specific entry, which is the expression of legislative intent that did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (19) of Finance Act, 1994 defining the terms of "Business Auxiliary Service" attracted service rendered by Appellant to be taxable by the impugned order. He also submitted that the order of adjudication is also time barred. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following decisions (i) Glaxo Smithkline Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2005 (71) RLT 737 (CESTAT-Mum.) =2006 (3) STR 711 (ii) Bhagyanagar Services Vs. CCE - 2006 (76) RLT 812 (CESTAT-Ban.)=2006 (4) STR 22 (iii)EV Mathai & Co. Vs. CCE - 2006 (3) STR 116 (iv) BS Refrigeration Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2006 (76) RLT 592 (CESTAT-Ban.)=2006 (4) STR 103 (v) SB Construction Co. Vs. UOI - 2006 (4) STR 545 (Raj.) (vi) CCE Vs. MRF Ltd. - 2006 (3) STR 434 (vii) Roots Multiclean Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2006 (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (zzz) to Section 65 (105) of Finance Act, 1994, transport through pipeline was brought to ambit of tax. Transport of crude oil through pipeline having been brought to tax specifically w.e.f. 16.6.05, taxation thereof prior to enactment of law is inconceivable. In view of our observations and view conveyed through Board Circular and considering the enactment as above, we are of view that the impugned order has no legs to stand. Accordingly, other points canvassed by both parties and citations relied upon by them do not call for determination. The Appellant therefore succeeds and appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of adjudication.
(Operative part of the Order was pronounced in the open Court on 18.2.2008) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
