2008 (5) TMI 187 - AT - Service Tax

Activities considered by the adjudicating authority in the category of Cargo Handling Service are bulk-breaking document courier cargo consolidation etc. - facts relating to Cargo Handling Services require a closer study - benefit of doubt is given to the appellants in respect of some of the activities - in respect of certain other categories such as bulk-breaking the appellants seem to have failed to make out a prima facie case stay not granted completely

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of service tax in various categories
2. Denial of CENVAT credit
3. Imposition of penalties
4. Dispute regarding "Cargo Handling Services" category
5. Pre-deposit requirement

Issue 1: Demand of service tax in various categories
The adjudicating authority demanded service tax amounting to over Rs. 1.33 crores from the appellants for the period from 16-8-2002 to 31-3-2006 in categories such as "Cargo Handling Services," "Business Auxiliary Services," and "Goods Transport Agency Services." The appellants had already paid a portion of the demanded amounts in some categories.

Issue 2: Denial of CENVAT credit
CENVAT credit amounting to over Rs. 10.8 lakhs was denied to the appellants, and they had reversed this credit.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalties
Penalties were imposed on the appellants by the adjudicating authority.

Issue 4: Dispute regarding "Cargo Handling Services" category
The main contention revolved around the demand in the "Cargo Handling Services" category, amounting to Rs. 1.16 crores. The appellants claimed they did not physically handle the cargo and that the amounts considered for service tax were reimbursed by importers without any physical involvement in cargo handling. The definition of "Cargo Handling Service" under Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994, was crucial in this dispute. The appellants argued that the activities considered by the adjudicating authority were performed by others who had custody of the goods, not by them.

Issue 5: Pre-deposit requirement
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that a closer examination of the facts related to "Cargo Handling Services" was necessary. The appellants were directed to pre-deposit Rs. 20,00,000 for the purpose of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, with waiver and stay of recovery granted for other demands and penalties. Compliance was required within four weeks.

This judgment highlights the detailed examination of the demands, denial of credit, penalties imposed, and the specific dispute regarding the "Cargo Handling Services" category. The Tribunal granted relief to the appellants by directing a pre-deposit amount while providing waivers and stays for other aspects of the case.