TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with confirmation of interest. In addition, personal penalty of identical amount stands imposed under Section 76 and under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with imposition of penalty of Rs.1,000/- under Section 77. 2. The appellant had entered into two different contracts with M/s. Charnbal Fertilizers Chemicals Ltd. (CFCL), Kota. As per Contract No. JPR/HAND/2004-05 dated 8-4-2004, the appellant was to supply the following services to M/s. CFCL: "While uploading the material from railway wagons, (Unloading of Fertilizers from wagons, stacking on platform and 1oadir into the trucks from platform), stacking the same at the company's warehouse and destacking and loading into truck the contractor shall protect the fertili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o been assailed on the point of limitation. 4. After hearing both sides, I find that the issue to be decided in the present is as to whether the activity undertaken by the appellant i.e. transportation of material from railway station to the company's/customer's warehouse is covered under Cargo Handling services or not. Cargo Handling Services stands defined under sub-section (23) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, as under :- "Cargo Handling service" means loading, unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo and includes cargo handling services provided for freight in special containers or for non-containerised freight services provided by a container freight terminal or any other freight terminal for all modes of trans port and carg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch, I agree with the appellant that mere transportation of the goods would not make them as cargo handling service provider. 6. Apart from the above, I find that the demand is barred by limitation inasmuch as show cause notice for the period 16-8-2002 to 31-10-2004 was issued on 12-9-2005. The service tax having been introduced for the first time was in a lot of confusion and doubt. Merely because the appellant did not apply for registration and did not pay tax is no ground to come to a finding that the same was done with a mala fide intention. Keeping in view the confusion prevailing in the field as regards the liability of service tax, the appellant is to be extended benefit of doubt and it is to be held that there was no intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
