2008 (10) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tamil Nadu Petrochemicals Ltd. (TPL) and M/s. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. (MFL) for storage of liquid Ammonia imported by them, In the case of TNPL and MFL, CFL arranged to receive the Ammonia at the berth in the sea at a distance of two and a half kilometers from shore and arranged to transport the same to the storage facility through submarine pipeline. CFL collected charges at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per M.T. from MFL and Rs. 1,700 per M.T. from TPL for unloading the liquid Ammonia from the vessel and uploading the same in the storage tank. Service tax on 'storage and warehousing/cargo handling service' was introduced with effect from 16-8-2002. CFL had set up the facility in question in the year 1996. In the wake of the impost of service tax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. The demand was barred by limitation. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs.1,97,577 under the category of 'storage and warehousing service' rendered during 16-8-2002 to 31-3-2003. Penalties were imposed under sections 75A, 76 and 77. Applicable interest also was demanded. The appellants took the same grounds before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the original authority but categorized the service rendered by the appellants as 'storage and warehousing/cargo handling service'. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the demand was not barred by limitation. Despite enquiries from the authorities since 2002, the appellants furnished relevant information only by 24-5-2003. It was also s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the prescribed statutory returns in respect of the service it had rendered whereby the value of taxable service rendered by the appellant had escaped payment. In such a case, section 73(1)(a) of the Act which the show-cause notice invoked empowered the proper officer to demand service tax not paid for a period of five years from the date of issue of the notice. 4. I have considered the facts of the case and the rival submissions. There is no dispute that the show-cause notice did not indicate the specific category of service under which the department had proposed to classify the service rendered by the appellant during the material period. This is a fundamental flaw. If the service rendered by the assessee appeared to be classifiable un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X