2010 (3) TMI 454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent. On 30-10-2001, the Superintendent of Central Excise asked the sugar factory to submit the information regarding the services received from the transport operators and the same was submitted by the sugar factory on 8-11-2001. On 28-3-2003, the appellants were issued a show-cause notice demanding Service Tax for the services provided to the sugar factory i.e. cutting of sugarcane, its loading into vehicle and transportation upto the sugar factory under the category of 'Clearing and Forwarding Services', for the period from 1997-98 to 2000-01. Further, on 9-11-2004, another show-cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding the Service Tax for delivery of sugar, its loading into vehicles and transportation, unloading/loading to trai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e service in dispute can either be treated as GTO services or CFA services. But, at the same time the said services cannot be held as services of GTO to demand Service Tax from sugar factory and treating the same as CFA services to demand service tax from the appellants. The demand of Service Tax under the category of CFA is contradictory to the department's earlier stand. Accordingly, the show cause notices are not sustainable. 3. Shri W.L. Hangshing, learned Jt. CDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the Commissioner. 4. Heard both sides. 5. We have examined the record before us and find that two show cause notices were issued to the appellants; (a) on 28-3-2003 demanding the service tax for providing services .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e notice was issued to merge the earlier show cause notice and the Commissioner has merged both the show cause notices in a single show cause notice which is not permissible under the law. The earlier show cause notice was issued under the category of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' and the later show cause notice was under the 'Goods Transport Operator' services. In these circumstances the demand raised in the earlier show cause notice is not sustainable and the show cause notice was issued later-on, i.e. 9-11-2004 is barred by limitation as the department was having the knowledge of activities undertaken by the appellant in November 2001 and the show cause notice was not issued within the prescribed time-limit. There was no suppression of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X