9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0th September, 2013, the demand has been raised against the appellant under the category of Business Auxiliary Service by invoking extended period of limitation through show-cause notice dated 22.10.2013. It is also a fact on record that for the similar activity, another show-cause notice was issued to the sister concern of the appellant, namely, M/s Subham Syndicate to demand service tax under the category of Cargo Handling Service, which shows that the respondent was under confusion whether the activity undertaken by the appellant falls under the category of Cargo Handling Service or Business Auxiliary Service. In that circumstances, when the Revenue itself is not definite under which category the activity undertaken falls, the extended p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that during the period 01.10.2008 to 30.09.2013, the appellant was engaged for providing the services to their clients, comprising of (a) Transportation, Bundling and Feeding of Bamboo, (b) Unloading of Bamboo from Railway Wagons and shifting from Railway Siding to Bamboo Yard and (c) Coal Ash Transportation, unloading/shifting of SSP/Ind. Salt from Railway Wagons to go-down. 2.1 The Revenue is of the view that the said activity undertaken by the appellant falls under the Business Auxiliary Service, therefore, they are required to pay service tax and the appellant did not pay the service tax. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 22.10.2013 was issued to the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 2014 (36) STR 1291 (Tri-Mumbai). Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside on this ground only. 3.2 It is further submitted that the no particular Clause of Business Auxiliary Service has been invoked to demand the service tax from the appellant. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. 3.3 It is further submitted that the activity of the appellant was known to the Department much prior to issuance of show-cause notice and on 20.06.2010, when an enquiry was made for service tax liability under Business Auxiliary Service and no proceedings were initiated thereafter. In that circumstances also, the extended period of limitation is not invokable as the activity was known to the Department much prior to issuance of show-cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder which category the activity undertaken falls, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Moreover, the activity undertaken by the appellant was known to the Department much prior to issuance of show-cause notice i.e. 20.06.2010, when Revenue issued a letter to the appellant, which is as under : But no proceedings were initiated against the appellant. 7. In that circumstances also, we hold that the extended period of limitation is not invokable. 8. Further, we find that in this case, the demand of service tax has been raised against the appellant under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and no particular clause of Business Auxiliary Service has been charged against the appellant. Therefore, the show-caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
