Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Nizam singh Chauhan, M/s V.J. Trivedi and others Versus CCE, Bhopal and others

2015 (8) TMI 402 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Classification of service - Cargo handling service or mining service - Suppression of facts - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- As is evident from Para-II of the tender document for railing and transport of Maganese Ore the service involved wagon loading, truck loading, transport including stacking and de-stacking/rehandling of manganese ore. It is also seen that transport activity (excluding stacking) formed a very small part of the entire service rendered, inasmuch as w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Primary adjudicating authority has taken note of the fact that the service recipient M/s Maganese Ore India Ltd. had made a representative to CBEC regarding (non) taxability of the impugned service. The service was rendered to a public sector unit which had taken up the matter with CBEC contending that it was not taxable. It is thus evident that it is not a case where the appellant-assessees could/would have intended to suppress the fact of rendition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(Appeals) finding that the appellants are not guilty of supression and do not deserve to be penalised does not warrant any appellate intervention. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/456-457/2009-CU(DB), Appeal No. ST/305-306/2009-CU(DB) - F. Order No. 52319-52322/2015 - Dated:- 16-7-2015 - Mr. G. Raghuram, President and Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Govind Dixit, D.R For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, D.R. ORDER Per R.K. Singh : Appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed for the extended period of five years along with interest and also penalties were imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78. 2. The Revenue filed appeals Nos. ST/305-306/2009 against the said order-in-appeal on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has incorrectly set aside the demand for the period beyond the normal period and penalties were also unjustifiably dropped as the appellants were guilty of suppression of facts. 3. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant - assessees when the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en by them did not falling under the category of cargo handling service as defined under Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994 and their activity was covered under mining service as it related to mining and was carried out within the mining area and that mining service was not liable to service tax during the relevant period. They also contended that there was no suppression of facts and the details were given when asked for. They informed Revenue in writing that the service recipient (MOIL) h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

response to the summons and only sent their written submission and supplied the sought information almost three weeks after the date on which they were required to appear before the service tax officers along with the required details. So, the appellants are guilty of suppression of facts. Revenue also contended that suppression is sufficient to invoke the extended period as it is not required to be proved that suppression was with intent to evade payment of duty because the expression with inte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y (excluding stacking) formed a very small part of the entire service rendered, inasmuch as while hiring of truck including stacking was @ of ₹ 1,15000 / PMT, transport excluding stacking was only ₹ 10,000 / PMT, wagon loading was @ ₹ 1,25,000/- PMT and truck loading @ 25,000/- / PMT and stacking/re-handling was also @ 10,000 / PMT. As the goods were loaded on to the trucks and wagons they acquired the status of cargo. Therefore the activity performed by the appellant clearly f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version