9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Reddy, JDR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellant is required to pre-deposit Service tax amount of ₹ 65,47,829/- and penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- and further penalty of ₹ 1000/- under Section 77 of the Act and penalty at the rate of ₹ 200/- for every day. The assessee has been considered to be coming within the category of "Storage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been rejected by the Commissioner including the plea of time bar. The learned Counsel vehemently argued that matter and contended that in terms of the agreement whatever the charges they have collected is only demurrage charges and not storage charges. However, the Commissioner has relied on the Board's Circular No. 80/1/2005-S.T., dated 10-8-2005. The learned Counsel submits that even in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived payment/charged any amount on account of security services, electricity charges, insurance, rent or salaries/wages from the service recipients. Therefore, in terms of the impugned order, what has been collected by them was only storage charges which is liable for Service tax. 3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we notice that the appellant is not pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
