TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. - The impugned order disposes two appeals filed by M/s. Glass Fibres, Kottayam. Appellants are registered with the department as providers of 'Cargo Handling Services.' Their main client is M/s. Hindustan News Print Ltd. The activities undertaken by the appellant for his client are as under : (a) Receipt and stacking operation (b) Loading to trucks (c) Loading to Rail wagons (d) Loading to containers (e) Shifting news print reels (f) Restacking of reels (g) Manual packing (h) Manual repacking They paid service tax of Rs 3,38,252/- for the services rendered during the period October 2004 to June 2005. When its customer M/s. Hindustan News Print Ltd. refuse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken in the respective show cause notice. The ground for rejection of the refund claim as well as the demand was that the respective amounts pertained to 'Cargo Handling Services' payable by the assessee as per law. The Commissioner held that the impugned activity was more appropriately classifiable under 'storage and warehousing services.' Though the classification of some of the activities changed, the liability of the assessee found by the original authority was sustainable. Service Tax was imposed under both the taxable entries i.e. 'Cargo Handling' services and 'Storage and Warehousing' services on 16-8-2002. 4. The assessee relies on various case-law to argue that the impugned order which sustained the rejection of refund claim as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sified under a specific entry. Vide the impugned order, I find that the relevant entry for the impugned activity is 'storage and warehousing services.' The impugned order is at variance with the proposals in the show cause notice. Therefore, the same is not sustainable in law. 7. I find that in Coramandel Fertilizers case cited by the appellant, the appeal filed by the appellant therein was allowed on the ground that the show cause notice basic to the demand had not indicated the precise entry under which the activities impugned therein fell. In Mahakoshal Beverages case, the impugned order therein was vacated by the Tribunal since the Commissioner (Appeals) had sustained the demands under a different category than the one alleged in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
