9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew that the activity of transportation of fertilizers from the port to the warehouse and from warehouse to the railway sidings and packing in between would amount to cargo handling service and therefore appellant is liable to pay service tax during the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2009, service tax of more than Rs. 6.26 crores with interest has been confirmed and penalties under various sections of Finance Act have been imposed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the activity of the appellant within the port is treated as 'port service' and for transportation from the port to the warehouse and from warehouse to the railway sidings, the appellant/IPL have discharged service tax liability as GTA service receiver during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alid ground is shown or is brought up before us to show why the appellant did not participate in the adjudication proceedings at all. 4. Nevertheless after hearing both sides, we consider that it would not be appropriate for us to sit in appeal on an ex-party order which obviously would be based on the show-cause notice in the absence of any defence put up by the appellant. Therefore, we take up the appeal itself by dispensing with the requirement of predeposit for final decision. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel, we find that the most important aspect namely amendment of definition of 'cargo handling service' which has a consequence on the demand has not been considered by the Commissioner probably because there was no defence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the interest of justice, the appellant should be given another opportunity, since on a prima facie basis, we find that the appellants have paid taxes, which according to them is correct. 5. In view of the above, we consider it appropriate that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority to consider the issue afresh. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on any of the issues even though we have considered certain aspects for the purpose of predeposit. We also make it clear that appellant should not delay the de novo adjudication proceedings and just because we have not put them to terms, the proceedings should not be prolonged. If the appellants do not cooperate in the adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
