GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 943 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (9) TMI 943 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 982 (Tri. - Del.) - Cargo handling service - for railing and transport of Maganese Ore the service involved wagon loading, truck loading, transport including stacking and de-stacking/rehandling of manganese ore. - penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 - Held that:- transport activity (excluding stacking) formed a very small part of the entire service rendered, inasmuch as while hiring of truck including stacking was @ of ₹ 1,15000 / PM .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he case of Coal Carriers Vs. CCE - [2011 (2) TMI 1140 - ORISSA HIGH COURT]. - 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 of the impugned service. The appellants also supplied the information within about 3 weeks of the date on which they were summoned to appear before the Central Excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shri Govind Dixit & Shri Amresh Jain, DRs ORDER Per R K Singh Appeals Nos. ST/456-457/2009 have been filed by the appellant - assessees against order-in-Appeal 155 & 156/BPL/2009 dated 5.3.2009 which upheld the respective orders-in-original dated 13.10.2008 and 10.9.2008 only to the extent of sustaining the demand along with interest for the normal period of one year under cargo handling service for the service rendered by these appellants to M/s Maganese Ore India Ltd. (MOIL) but the sa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 3. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant - assessees when the case was called. The appellant - assessees sent a Fax received at 11.06 A.M. on the date of the hearing seeking adjournment on the ground that their Advocate was pre-occupied. As the request was received rather too late and that too to convey the Advocate's pre-occupation in such perfunctory manner it is not considered good and sufficient ground to grant adjournment and so we proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 3. The a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

asked for. They informed Revenue in writing that the service recipient (MOIL) had taken up the matter with the CBEC regarding the taxability of the activity and requested that the matter may be kept pending. 4. Revenue on the other hand has contending that there was no ambiguity about the activity being squarely covered under cargo handling service as the definition given in Section 65(23) ibid left no scope for any confusion in this regard and that the summons issued to the appellants were not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssion was with intent to evade payment of duty because the expression "with intent to evade payment of duty" does not appear in sub-clause (d) of proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides and we have also perused the contract under which the service was rendered. 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 st .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

acquired the status of cargo. Therefore the activity performed by the appellant clearly fell under the category of cargo handling service as defined in Section 65(23) ibid. This conclusion is in harmony with the ratio of the judgement in the case of Coal Carriers Vs. CCE - 2011 (24) STR 395 (Ori.). The judgement of CESTAT in the case of CCE Vs. Vinshree Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (10) STR 473 (Tri.-Kolkata) holding transport of coals within the mining area not subjected to service tax under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 IGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

7-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

More Circulars



|| 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