9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rship firm engaged in providing material handling equipment to various business concerns. The appellant has been supplying cranes, etc. (tangible goods) to clients without transferring the right of possession and effective control. The Service Tax Authorities had issued two Show Cause Notices bearing SCN No V(15)15/DSCN/IH/ST/Adjn./Hal-1/09/199 dated 24th April 2009 and C. No-V.ST(15)77)/CE/Hal Adjn/09/17462 dated 5th October 2009. Demand of Service Tax of Rs.4,36,058/-, Education Cessof Rs. 8,721/- and Secondary & Higher Education Cess of Rs. 4,361/- was proposed vide the first Show Cause Notice and demand of Service Tax of Rs.22,55,394/-, Education Cessof Rs. 45,108/- and Secondary & Higher Education Cess of Rs. 45,108/- was proposed vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal. 4. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the services rendered by them are rightly classifiable under the category of "supply of tangible goods" service as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994, which came into the Service Tax net only with effect from 16.05.2008, while the present demand pertains to the periods from 11.03.2008 to 31.03.2008 and from 01.04.2008 to 15.05.2008.The appellant therefore submits that the impugned demand pertains to the period prior to 16.05.2008 when there was no liability to Service Tax for the equipment hired under the category of "supply of tangible goods". Thus, it is his contention that the demand raised in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dispute. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant part of the said decision is reproduced below: - "6. Our views are also fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners' Association(supra), the relevant extract of which is reproduced as under:- "38. If the Department's contention is accepted that would mean that the activities of the members of the 1st petitioner are covered by entry(zzzy) and entry (zzzzj). Such a result is difficult to comprehend because entry (zzzzj) is not a specie of what is covered by entry (zzzy). Introduction of new entry and inclusion of certain services in that entry would presuppose that there was no earlier entry covering the said services. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
