TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice for the period from 2002 to 31-3-2005. It is thus seen that bulk of the demand pertains to the period beyond the normal period of limitation. We have perused the show cause notice issued to the appellant. Apart from making a bland statement that the appellant has suppressed the facts from the department, no evidence has been led by the Revenue to show that the appellant in fact suppressed the facts with an intention to evade tax. The appellant being a Public Sector Undertaking of Government of India, it would not be correct to infer any evasion of duty or intention to do so as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Markfed Refined Oil & Allied Industries cited [2009 (7) TMI 1204 - PUNJAB AND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 16-8-2002 to 31-3-2005 invoking the extended period of time under the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The notice also proposed to recover interest on the Service Tax short paid and to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The notice was adjudicated upon and the demands were confirmed along with interest apart from imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Hence, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld. counsel for the appellant makes the following submissions : 3.1 As per the Board Circular No. B-11/l/2002-TRU, dated 1-8-2002 in respect of cargo handling service, if the service has been rendered in a composite manner, which includes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pty containers from CFS to empty yard. They had also enclosed the tariff card for transportation and handling charges which they were collecting in respect of containers. There are correspondence available between the appellant and the department such as letter dated 22-6-2004 addressed to the Range Superintendent wherein the appellant had submitted that total expenditure incurred by them for transportation is ₹ 1.32 crore against their billing of ₹ 1.70 crore and the records of the appellant were also audited. In view of the above factual position, invoking extended period of time to demand Service Tax is not sustainable in law. It is also contended that the appellant being a Government of India undertaking, no mala fide can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d charges towards transportation, thereby recovering transportation charges of ₹ 900/- per TEU from the customers whereas they are actually paying the transportation charges of only ₹ 725/- TEU. In other words, the appellant himself has admitted that he was collecting more charges towards transportation which is not permitted. Accordingly, he pleads for upholding the impugned order and sustaining the demands. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 It is an admitted position that during the period from 16-8-2002 to 31-12-2004 there was no Service Tax levied on the service of goods transportation. Therefore, Service Tax could not have been collected on this activity during the said period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
