9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in, Advocate for the Appellant(s) Shri Satyapal, A.R. for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax has been confirmed under the category of "Cargo Handling Service" for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05, by issuance of show cause notice dated 21.04.2009. 2. The facts of the case are that during the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the appellant submits that the activities of transporting molasses by road through containers from sugar mills to distilleries is classifiable under GTA services, therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax. The appellant relied upon the CBEC Circular No. 104/07/2008-ST dated 06 Aug 2008 and Circular No. 186/5/2015-ST dated 05.10.2015. Alternate submission of the ld. Counsel is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department. Therefore, show cause notice issued by invoking extended period is not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR supported the adjudication order and submits that the adjudicating authority has examined the issue and hold that as the invoices shows handling charges, the same are covered under Cargo Handling service. Accordingly, he submits that impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 31.03.2004 for Rs. 3,50,098/- and invoice No. 11 dated 27.09.2004 for Rs. 3,24,979/- along with interest at the applicable rates of service tax prevailing during the relevant period. In that circumstance, the demand of service tax on these invoices is upheld. The appellant is also liable to be penalised under Section 78 for the said amount and we hold that penalty as per Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
