9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax on deposits made in favour of the appellant by the members of the consortium. The second was with regard to the demand of service tax on the difference in the rate charged by the appellant from the members of the consortium and non-members for providing cargo handling services . These three show cause notices were adjudicated by three separate orders confirming the demand. These three orders of the adjudicating authority were assailed before the Tribunal in three service tax appeals. All the three service tax appeals were decided by a common order dated 22.11.2019. The appeals were allowed and the three impugned orders were set asides. As the reasons given by the adjudicating authority for confirming the demands are the same as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstruction is borne by the owner of the siding. Private sidings are constructed to save expenditure on provisions, maintenance and operation of goods shed. The railways, therefore, consider it desirable to encourage private sidings, especially for those users whose traffic is handled in full train loads such as collieries, thermal power houses, steel, cement and fertilizer plants, iron ore mines and refineries. 4. For this purpose, a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] was arrived at between the appellant and the members of the consortium for joining hands together to construct the railway siding at Silyari, Tadali and at Bhupdeopur. In terms of the MOU, the appellant collected interest-free refundable deposits from the members of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cargo handling services . These three show cause notices were adjudicated by three separate orders confirming the demand. These three orders of the adjudicating authority were assailed before the Tribunal in three service tax appeals. All the three service tax appeals were decided by a common order dated 22.11.2019. The appeals were allowed and the three impugned orders were set asides. As the issue involved in the present two appeals is regarding the second issue, it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations made by the Tribunal on this issue and they are as follows: 39. The second issue that was examined by the Commissioner is as to whether the Appellant had charged lower rates for Cargo Handling from consortium members who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently loaded into wagons; (viii) In case of inward traffic unloading from wagons, removing from unloading platform to stockyard, loading from stockyard onto trucks and dumpers for subsequent dispatch to the consumer. 42. It is difficult to accept the reasoning given by the Commissioner for not accepting the rate agreed under the work orders to conclude that the Appellant had not disclosed the correct consideration for the taxable service. In the first instance, this reasoning is incorrect and secondly even the summary contained in the chart shows that in some cases the Appellant charged lesser amount per metric ton from the non-members of the consortium as against the members of the consortium. This clearly shows that the pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
