TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ati High Court, which was quashed on the ground of limitation. No-doubt, the earlier service tax demand was issued under the category of "Cargo Handling Services", but prima-facie, we find that the activities, which the Applicant rendered under both these Work Orders, are more or less similar in nature. Therefore, prima facie, at this stage, it would be difficult to accept the contention of the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 78, penalty of ₹ 1,74,400/- under Section 77 (1)(a) and penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Section 77 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the ld.C.A. appearing for the Applicant, submits that during the relevant period i.e. from 01.10.2006 to 31.08.2010, the Applicant had rendered the services namely, Handling of finished goods in the premises of M/s HPCL. He submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Revenue, the said Order was confirmed by the Division Bench. He submits that for similar services, involving the Work Order dated 24.07.2007, the present demand notice is issued invoking extended period again . He submits that there is no change in the scope of services between these two Work Orders. It is his submission that the second show-cause notice, which also invokes extended period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that since the earlier contract, got terminated and no new contract had been entered from 2007, therefore, subsequent demand notice cannot be termed as barred by limitation. He categorically submits that since the Applicant had started discharging service tax voluntarily w.e.f. 29.09.2010, therefore, the argument on merit that the activities would not fall under the category of Business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
