9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and out of total demand of Rs. 1,12,18,742 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,80,000. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent are rendering services like providing transportation including loading and unloading of coal to different customers for which they entered into contract and have received payment on account of rendering service to them. On scrutiny of profit and loss account of the respondent for the years 2002-03 to 2005-06 in respect of various work orders issued by one M/s. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd., the Central Excise Officers came to conclusion that for the work of transport of coal including loading and unloading activities mentioned in the said work orders, is actually cargo handling service for which a composite lum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e work orders which were not covered in the show-cause notice. The contention is that despite having found that there is a mismatch in the contract numbers, the learned Commissioner has decided the case on the ground that the period and amount in the bill raised referring to the above contract tally with the contract mentioned in the show-cause notice. The contention is that in case of contract at Sl. No. 5, he has classified the service under cargo handling service and confirmed the service tax amounting to Rs. 907 whereas the activity under the contract Nos. 6 and 7 is classified as business auxiliary service and also confirmed the service tax thereon amounting to Rs. 7,20,132. The contention of the Revenue is that the learned Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax and they were paying the service tax. Audit was conducted by the Department on September 15, 2006 and they were asked to produce certain documents/records for verification. On verification of records submitted by them, audit observation was issued on July 31, 2007 demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 1,35,79,172 which was alleged to have been short-paid by them. They submitted reply to audit observation vide their letter dated February 27, 2007. Based on their reply to audit observation, another revised audit observation demanding of service tax of Rs. 26,83,066 was issued on June 4, 2007 and accordingly they deposited service tax amounting to Rs. 26,83,066 along with interest. They submitted that the impugned show-cause notice was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. CII/SBB/SLAG/2501 dated August 24, 2005. Undisputedly, the learned Commissioner has solely relied upon the following work orders as is evident from para 6 of his order. 1. 2003/5162/0/0/00/R.13 dated March 25, 2002 2. 2003/5169/0/0/00/R.13 dated March 5, 2003 3. 2004/5165/0/0/00/R.13 dated March 5, 2004 4. 2005/5138/0/0/00/R.13 dated July 21, 2005 5. 3000020161/962 dated August 4, 2005 6. 3000021395/962 dated May 10, 2004 7. 3000021895/962 dated May 10, 2005 We find that the learned Commissioner has proceeded on the premise that the period and amount in the bills raised tally with the contracts considered by him. He has considered the work orders shown in para 6 of his order despite attempting the fact that he himself agreed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
