9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of India assisted by Mr.Krishna Ravindran For the R6 : Mr.R.D.Ganesan ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned Show Cause cum Demand Notice No.45/2020-ST dated 23.12.2020 bearing reference F.No.INV/DGGI/CoZU/T/30/2019-ST issued by the second respondent. 2. By the impugned Show Cause cum Demand Notice, the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why, i. an amount of Rs. 9,37,17,910/- (Nine crores thirty seven lakhs and seventeen thousand and nine hundred and ten rupees) [Service Tax Rs. 8,89,16,444/-, Swachh Bharat Cess -Rs. 31,75,587/- and Krishi Kalyan Cess Rs. 16,25,879/-] payable as detailed in para 10.7 of this Show Cause Notice for the period 2015-16 to 2017-18 (upto June 2017), should not be demanded and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents by putting in rail linings, is specifically exempted in terms of Sl.No.14(a) to Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification No.6/2015-ST dated 01.03.2015. It is submitted that by the subsequent amendment, the exemption in Sl.No.14(a) has been partly amended by removing the exemption granted for airport and port services. However, the service provided by the petitioner to the third and fourth respondents on behalf of the fifth and sixth respondents for putting up rail linings still continued to be exempted. Despite the same, the second respondent has issued impugned Show Cause cum Demand Notice to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mited rep. by its Director Sardarmal M.Chordia, Madras Vs. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras and others, (2005) 2 MLJ 246 (DB), iv. United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, (2010) 8 SCC 110. v. Raj Kumar Shivhar Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another, (2010) 4 SCC 772. 8. The learned counsel for the sixth respondent would submit that the fifth and sixth respondents have been unnecessarily impleaded in this Writ Petition. It is submitted that the parties are governed by the contract signed between them and therefore, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
