|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 2170 Records
-
2019 (4) TMI 1977
Grant of Anticipatory Bail - illegal transportation of poor quality of rice, salt - offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 109, 120B of IPC, 1860 & Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) & 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and further considering the fact that there is no direct evidence against the present applicant, the benefit of anticipatory bail is extended to the applicant.
Anticipatory bail application is allowed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1976
Condonation of delay - declining to entertain the delay of 1158 days in filing the appeal - ex-parte order was passed - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. Merely holding technicalities against the assessee is not just and fair in the facts of this case. The reason for the delay would also have to be considered. The reason assigned by the assessee being just and reasonable, in our view constitutes sufficient cause. We are of the view that the rights of the parties are required to be decided on merits and not on merely technicalities. Hence, on these grounds the appeal is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. The appeal is restored to file.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1975
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditor or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - service of notice - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the material available on record it is found that service of notice is complete. That, despite issuance of notice by the petitioner the respondent has not made payment of outstanding amount nor raised any dispute. That, no dispute has been raised by the respondent.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record it is found that the applicant has annexed to the application invoices for the period from 01.08.2014 to 01.03.2017 for the services rendered to the respondent. On perusal of the bank statement it is found that respondent has never made any payment towards the services rendered by the applicant. It is also found that the bills raised from 01.08.2014 to 01.08.2015 are time barred in as much as there is no acknowledgement of debt which can revive the period of limitation. However, the invoices raised 12.11.15 onwards are within limitation.
Existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The operational debt is due to the Applicant. Therefore, Applicant is an "Operational Creditor" within the meaning of sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Code. From the aforesaid material on record, it is established that there exists debt as well as there is occurrence of default.
That, the Application filed by the Applicant is complete in all respects. That, record show that the notice issued by the applicant is received by the respondent. From the above stated discussion and on the basis of material available on record it is a fit case to initiate Insolvency Resolution Process by admitting the Application under Section 9(5)(1) of the Code - application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1974
Sale of Landed property - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the plots are booked and sold by various sale agents in respect of various land banks located throughout India, and therefore, the sales reports generated out of such bookings and sale deeds registered shall be submitted to the Committee every week - In case, any issue arises with regard to fixing ERP rates, on which there is difference of opinion among the members, the same will be resolved by the Observer amicably. It is made clear that all the pending booking shall also be subject to the ERP rates fixed by the Committee and the procedure mentioned.
The Interim Relief prayed stands granted with modifications as recommended. The matter is posted for making final submissions in relation to the interim prayers made under Para U-B (IV) & (VI) along with the issue of maintainability of the Petition.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1973
Bail application - predicate offences - constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act - HELD THAT:- The law laid down by this Court on the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act in NIKESH TARACHAND SHAH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [2017 (11) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT], has not been taken into account. After a detailed discussion on the facts, the High Court opined that prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and, so, he was not entitled for bail.
The petitioner was in jail for five months in the predicate offences. A charge sheet has been filed in the case registered under the PMLA Act, though, the learned Additional Solicitor General says that further investigation is in progress - petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court - Bail application allowed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1972
Revision u/s 263 - The claim of depreciation being allowed on plant and machinery though the manufacturing activity had been stopped, under valuation of a closing stock and non verification of the cost of improvement of the assessee - HELD THAT:- CIT has not only to establish that the assessment order is erroneous but also to establish that the assessment order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, we find that on two of the issues i.e. the cost improvement and under valuation of closing stock, the A.O. had verified the facts during the assessment proceedings itself.
As far as the allowability of depreciation on plant and machinery is concerned, we find that the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Oswal Agro Mills and Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. [2010 (12) TMI 947 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is very much applicable and the depreciation is allowable on idle plant and machinery, and therefore allowing of such depreciation cannot be treated as erroneous order. The case laws relied upon by the Ld. DR are all distinguishable on facts, therefore, they are not applicable to the facts of the case before us. In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT u/s. 263 of the Act was not sustainable. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1971
Assessment u/s 153A - whether any assessment order u/s 143 (3) was passed or not before the date of search for deciding this aspect of the matter that the assessment is pending or not on the date of search? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, this is not a case where notice u/s 143 (2) was issued and time is available for passing of order u/s 143 (3). In fact, in the present case, no notice u/s 143 (2) was issued before the date of search for any of these four years. Now we examine as to whether, time was available to the AO to issue notice u/s 143 (2) on the date of search. As per proviso to section 143 (2), no notice shall be issued after expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed. Last return was filed for A. Y. 2011- 12 on 25.09.2011 and therefore, notice u/s 143 (2) for this year could have been issued up to 30.09.2012 and the search has taken place on 11.10.2012. So time was not available to the AO on the date of search to issue notice u/s 143 (2) for any of these four years. Hence, no assessment was pending on 11.10.2012 and hence, no assessment gets abated.
As per the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Meeta Gutgutia [2017 (5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT], if no incriminating material is found in search and assessment is not abated, such a completed assessment cannot be reopened u/s 153A in the absence of incriminating material having been found in search. SLP filed by the revenue against this judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court is dismissed by Hon’ble apex court. But in order to apply the ratio of this judgment, this factual aspect has to be examined as to whether any incriminating material for any of these four assessment years was found or not in search. CIT (A) has not given any finding on this factual aspect because he proceeded on this basis that this is not material as per the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Canara Housing Development Co. [2014 (8) TMI 642 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] but we have seen that this judgment is not relevant to decide this aspect as to whether section 153A can be invoked for a year prior to the year of search if no incriminating material is found in search for that year and the assessment is not pending on the date of search.
Hence, we feel it proper to restore the matter back to CIT (A) for a fresh decision on this aspect about validity of invocation of section 153A in the light of this judgment of Hon’ble Delhi high Court rendered in the case of Meeta Gutgutia (Supra) against which, SLP is dismissed by Hon’ble apex court after finding out the facts as to whether any incriminating material was found in search or not. If the assessee succeeds on this aspect then nothing remains to be decided on merit but if the assessee fails on this technical aspect then the issues on merit should be decided by CIT (A) afresh because in our opinion, the issue on merit should be decided after deciding the technical issue. Hence, in view of this decision, we do not decide any issue on merit arising out of the appeal of the assessee or revenue. Appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1970
Condonation of delay - sufficient cause of delay - delay of 1478 days, 1543 days and 1505 days for the assessment years 2013-14 [Q- 2 & Q-3] and 2014-15 [Q-1] respectively in filing appeals - HELD THAT:- Assessee has filed an affidavit mainly stating that the intimation under section 200A of the Act appears to have been passed and intimated by e-mail, whereas interest under section 234E of the Act towards late filing fee for delay in filing the quarterly returns were not communicated to them. It was further submission that the assessee was under bonafide belief that TDS returns filed for quarters were fully accepted by the Department. Besides above, it was stated that the Chairman, Shri S.P. Rajendran who was looking after income tax matters suddenly passed away on 06.03.2018 and the assessee had to reorganize the office
In the instant case, the assessee was not aware what to do and how to proceed further against the intimation passed by the DCIT CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad since the Chairman of the assessee company suddenly passed away. Therefore, after consulting higher officials, income tax practioners/ Advocates, the assessee preferred appeals with delay before the ld. CIT(A) - we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we set aside the common order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the appeals on merits after giving sufficient opportunities of hearing to the assessee.e Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1969
CENVAT Credit - input services - privity of contract - procurement of services used in laying of ‘pipelines’ intended for distribution of ‘compressed natural gas (CNG) and piped natural gas (PNG) - HELD THAT:- The issue is decided in the case of RELIANCE GAS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI II [2016 (8) TMI 91 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that From the record it clearly comes out that the privity of contract in the instant case was between the appellant and the service provider and that these service providers were under no obligation whatsoever to the pipeline laying contractors nor were the pipeline laying contractors under any obligation to pay for the said services or to compensate or otherwise for the deficiency in the services of the said service providers. This being the case the finding that services availed of from the other service providers as also the capital goods were used by the pipeline laying contractors is clearly untenable.
Furthermore, the eligibility for credit having been upheld for the subsequent period, it is not open to the respondent herein to take a contrary stand - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1968
Non-consideration of application under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 - application rejected on the ground that the investigations initiated against the appellants were pending as on 01.03.2013 and thus, the said applications cannot be considered for adjudication under Section 106(2) of the Finance Act, 2013 - SCN not issued within 30 days from the date of filing of the declaration - HELD THAT:- Section 106(2) of the Finance Act, 2013 prohibits filing of declaration under the VCES by the applicant under certain circumstances. On perusal of the statutory provisions u/s 106(2), it transpires that specific enquiry/investigation initiated by the department, requiring production of the relevant records should not be considered for the benefit provided under VCES and the declaration filed by the applicant is liable for rejection, upon compliance of the statutory provisions.
The department in this case, had issued the summon dated 16.01.2013 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, calling upon the appellant for submission of records such as, balance sheet, ledger accounts, work orders, invoices and other related service tax records/documents etc., concerning the taxable service provided by the appellant. Since, the summon issued by the department clearly specified the documents required for verification of the issue regarding discharge of appropriate service tax liability, it cannot be said that the appellant is falling under the execution category provided under Section 106(2) ibid.
SCN not issued within 30 days from the date of filing of the declaration - HELD THAT:- The Finance Act, 2013, governing the VCES nowhere specified the time limit within which the notice has to be issued by the department. The CBEC vide paragraph ‘12’ in the circular dated 08.08.2013 has only clarified maintaining uniformity regarding issuance of notice within 30 days. Since, there is no specific time limit provided under the statute, the circular merely clarifying the position of issuance of show cause notice within specified time limit cannot override the provisions of the legislation and accordingly, the stand taken by the appellant cannot be considered as proper and justified.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1967
SSI exemption - use of the brand name of others or not - it is contended that the inscription on the goods, viz., ‘IWI Newstech’ and ‘TS 300’ are merely the name of the appellant and the generic name of the machine with the speed and cannot be construed as ‘brand names’ of any other entity - HELD THAT:- It has been admitted by the appellants that these were fixed on the goods at the time of clearance. However, it has been pointed out that the first of these is the abbreviated form of the name of the manufacturing company and, by no stretch, could it be held to be that of one of the parent entities. There is no doubt that the overseas entity, M/s IDAB Wamac International may also be abbreviated as IWI but neither can be same initials be alienated from the appellant-assessee. There is no evidence on record that the abbreviation was deployed, and even associated with, the overseas entity in the minds of customers which is an essential requirement for disallowance of the benefit of the exemption notification.
It is also on record that the appellant-assessee had clarified the nature of the inscription ‘TS 300’ as a generic indication of the nomenclature of the equipment, viz., ‘turner stacker’ with speed rating of 300. Again, other than a sweeping statement of the familiarity of this description with customers, not founded on any recorded evidence, it is found that nothing on record counters this claim. In any case, there is no evidence that the inscription ‘TS 300’ is associated with any specific manufacturer.
The imposition of penalties on the other two appellants, under rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, also flow from the finding of ineligibility of the appellant-assessee. The imposition of penalties is also without any foundation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1966
Refund of service tax - doctrine of unjust enrichment duly complied with or not - appellant had not charged the tax element in the profit and loss account as an expenditure and that no amount was payable by the appellant to various service providers - section 87 of FA - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the adjudication order, without proper examination of the issue, whether the refund amount in question had actually been charged to the profit and loss account or not. Further, the amounts payable to various service providers, in order to attract the provisions of Section 87 ibid have also not been addressed properly with the help of the documentary evidences. Furthermore, it is also observed that the submissions made by the appellant were not addressed in effective manner for adjudication of the dispute. Therefore, the issues involved in this case are required to be reconsidered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for arriving at a proper conclusion, whether or not the appellant should be entitled for refund benefit.
The matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issues afresh - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1965
Levy of service tax - Business Auxiliary Service - cable subscription charges collected from the cable operators - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant under the cover of its letter dated 01.05.2015, addressed to the Deputy Registrar of this Tribunal, had enclosed a statement showing the reference of challans, through which the service tax amount was deposited by it. Further, the said statement had also been certified by the practising Chartered Accountant firm. However, the payment particulars reflected in such statement has not been considered by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order passed by him, owing to the reason that the payments were made by the appellant during the course of filing of appeal before the Tribunal and not at the adjudication stage.
The matter should be remanded to the original authority for verification of the payment particulars made by the appellant - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1964
Refund of CENVAT Credit - suo-moto re-credit - fulfilment of condition that the exports were to be completed within six months from the date of removal from the factory and to be evidenced by submission of duly endorsed ARE-1s - HELD THAT:- Credit of duties/taxes paid can be taken, in accordance with rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, on receipt of eligible ‘inputs’, ‘capital goods’, and ‘input services’ against documentation prescribed therein. The eligibility for such availment is not in dispute here. On the contrary, it is the failure to discharge of liability on ‘output’ by failure to comply with condition of exemption that led to debit of the duty. The consequent restoration the credit, on the basis of duly endorsed ARE-1s, does not appear to have the sanction of Rules. The sole circumstance in which suo motu credit can be recorded did not prevail when respondent reversed the debit. In the absence of legal provision for restoration, the action of the respondent does not have authority of law.
The respondent herein was an exporter and the factum of exports is not in dispute. The eligibility for refund of the CENVAT credit, debited towards the payment of duty on immediate inability to establish evidence of export, is also not in dispute. Furthermore, the respondent had been at pains, as pointed out by the first appellate authority, to report the restoration of credit as and when it occurred. There is, thus, no ground for alleging suppression, fraud or misrepresentation of any kind. Therefore, the demand stands barred by limitation of time as held by the first appellate authority.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1963
EPCG Scheme - concessional rate of duty - denial of the benefit provided under Notification No. 55/2003 dated 01.04.2003 on the ground that the services provided was ocean freight service to liners and such transport service did not fall under cargo handling service - HELD THAT:- The disputed capital goods were installed/commissioned in the premises of the appellant on 29.04.2004, which is evident from the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineers M/s. Joshi & Associates, placed at page 36 in the appeal records. Such installation certificate of Chartered Engineers has not been disproved by the department. Further, we also find that the appellant had filed the statement in form Appendix-9B before the Office of the DGFT regarding the foreign exchange earned by it as per the EPCG Scheme. In the said form, the appellant had stated the category of service provided as “cargo handling service”. On the basis of the documents submitted by the appellant, the Office of DGFT vide redemption letter dated 20.11.2009 had confirmed that the export obligation against the EPCG authorization dated 01.03.2004 has been discharged.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, since the licensing authority had confirmed the fact regarding achievement of the export obligation by the appellant, the benefit of concessional duty in terms of Notification No. 55/2003-Cus., dated 01.04.2003 cannot be denied by the customs department. The law is well settled in the case of TITAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [2002 (11) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT] that once an advance licence was issued and not questioned by the licensing authority, the Customs authorities cannot refuse exemption on an allegation that there was misrepresentation and that if there was any misrepresentation, it was for the licensing authority to take steps in that behalf.
In this case, it is an admitted fact on record that on the basis of documents submitted by the appellant towards discharge of export obligation, the licensing authority has issued the redemption letter, confirming achievement of export obligation. The certificate issued by the DGFT cannot be questioned at this juncture for non-fulfillment of the export obligation and contravention of the provisions under the Notification dated 01.04.2003.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant
-
2019 (4) TMI 1962
Levy of service tax - Commercial Training and Coaching Service - appellant is an educational institution, engaged in imparting training/coaching to students for various competitive examinations, by charging fees thereon - appellant’s institute is a public charitable trust, established with the objective of not earning any profits - exempt or not form payment of service tax - period October 2005 to March 2011 - HELD THAT:- The phrase ‘Commercial Training or Coaching’ has been defined in Section 65 (26) ibid, to mean any training or coaching provided by a commercial training or coaching centre. The taxable entry under such category of service has been defined in Section 65(105) (zzc) ibid to mean service provided or to be provided to any person, by a commercial training or coaching centre in relation to commercial training or coaching. Usage of the word ‘commercial’ in the above definition clause created confusion on the issue, whether noncommercial institutions having no motive to earn profit should also fall under the taxable entry or not. To bring about clarity in the definition of commercial training or coaching centre, an explanation was inserted by Finance Act, 2010 (14 of 2010) dated 08.05.2010 in the definition of the taxable service.
The period of dispute involved in this case is from 01.10.2005 to 31.03.2011. On perusal of the explanation clause appended to the definition of taxable service under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching in Section 65 (105)(zzc) ibid and the clarification furnished vide Circular dated 26.02.2010, it transpires that owing to the reason of use of the phrase ‘commercial’ in the definition of taxable service, there were lot of confusions with regard to payment of service tax under such category of service and even the tax payers also resisted in paying service tax on such ground. Thus, the scope and ambit of the definition was clarified by the Central Government by way of insertion of the explanation clause in Section 65 (105)(zzc) ibid.
For the period May 2010 to March 2011, the appellant had collected the service tax from the service recipients, but did not deposit such amount into the Central Government account. The assessee is not empowered under the service tax statute to retain the service tax amount collected from the service receivers. Hence, the service tax amount collected by the appellant during the said period is liable for recovery along with interest, which has been appropriately demanded in the impugned order.
The impugned order sustains, insofar as it has confirmed the adjudged demands within the normal period provided under Section 73(1) ibid. The extended period of limitation as per the proviso appended thereto cannot be invoked and accordingly, the adjudged demands confirmed beyond the normal period is not sustainable and to such extent, the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant. The penalty imposed under Section 78 ibid is also set aside - Appeal disposed off.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1961
Unexplained income of the assessee u/s 68 - undisclosed loan raised by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Order of the CIT(A) reveals that the assessee had duly furnished not only the bank statement of Shri Sham Singh, creditor but also the bank statement of ‘Sunil Kumar Goel, HUF’ from whom Shri Sham Singh had taken loan which was further advanced to the assessee. All the transact ions were routed through banking channel. The confirmations of the aforesaid transact ions were duly filed before the Assessing officer, whereby, not only ‘Sunil Kumar Goel, HUF’ confirmed the loan transactions with Shri Sham Singh but also Shri Sham Singh further confirmed the loan transactions with the assessee.
So far as the question that the CIT(A) raised that why a person would take loan on interest to pay it further interest free to the assessee, is concerned, we are of the view, that the aforesaid fact is not sufficient to hold that it was the own money of the assessee which was routed through Shri Sham Singh.
Had it been so, in those circumstances, Shri Sham Singh would not have required to pay the interest to ‘Shri Sunil Kumar HUF’. Whether Shri Sham Singh had paid interest on the loan amount to Shri Sunil Kumar Goel HUF or not, in our view, is not relevant and cannot form the basis to hold that it was the own money of the assessee routed though Shri Sham Singh.
So far as the view of the Ld. CIT(A) that it was not clear as to from where Shri Sham Singh returned the money to ‘Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel HUF’, in our view, that is a matter of subsequent transaction between Shri Sham Singh and Shri Sunil Kumar Goel HUF and the assessee is not supposed to explain about that subsequent transact ion. CIT(A) did not choose to summon and cross examine of Shri Sham Singh about any subsequent transaction as it was only Shri Sham Singh who could have explained the source of the returned money to Shri Sunil Kumar Goel HUF. The said transaction however, is not related to the appellant and thus he is not supposed to answer that quest ion. The assessee in this case has not only duly proved the transact ion but has also proved the source of the aforesaid loan amount in the hands of the creditor.- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1960
Completion and Finishing Service - Commercial or Industrial Construction Service or not - non availment of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - issue of interpretation of law - extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- N/N. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 also clearly explained that the exemption under the said notification shall not apply to the ‘Completion and Finishing Service in relation to building of civil structure.
This notification shall not apply in cases where, -
(i) the CENVAT credit of duty on inputs or capital goods or the CENVAT credit of service tax on input services, used for providing such taxable service, has been taken under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; or
(ii) the service provider has availed the benefit under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 12/2003-Service Tax, dated the 20th June, 2003 [G.S.R. 503 (E), dated the 20th June, 2003].
Extended period limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellant cannot take the benefit on the ground that it is an issue of interpretation of law. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is rightly invoked. Accordingly, the demand of service tax is correctly confirmed and penalty is rightly imposed.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1959
Demand of Interest and penalty - repair and maintenance services - under some mistaken belief they failed to discharge their service tax liability - wilful suppression of facts or not - bonafide belief or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant has failed to fully justify their bonafide belief to the non-taxability of the impugned services. Accordingly the extended period has been correctly invoked and consequent interest and penalties are also justified in this case.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1958
CENVAT Credit - Cargo Handling Services - service of maintenance and repairs of power plant post 16/06/2005 - HELD THAT:- The repair and maintenance service admittedly the appellant was working as an individual. For the period prior to 16/06/2005, the appellant is carried out repairs and maintenance of immovable equipments and from 16/06/2005 such requisite of repairs of such equipments became taxable, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the category of maintenance and repair services prior to 16/06/2005, but post 16/06/2005 the appellant is liable to pay service tax. If same is not paid, the appellant is liable to pay serviced tax and interest thereon also. But, no penalty is imposable as the appellant is aggitating that it is an issue of interpretation.
Cargo Handling Service - HELD THAT:- Mere transportation of goods is not covered under the category of cargo handling services. Moreover, where the cargo handling service the activity of loading and unloading of cargo is not liable to service tax, the said view was taken by Tribunal in the case of DALVEER SINGH VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2007 (11) TMI 83 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the cargo handling service.
The appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of maintenance and repair service post 16/06/2005 (if same is not paid, same is to be paid alongwith interest), no penalty is leviable. Under the category of cargo handling services, the service tax demand is set aside - appeal disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
