TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t service tax from various clients under cargo handling service and upon enquiry by the Revenue, deposited an amount of ₹ 9.98 lakhs under the said category. It would appear that the assessee/appellant treated the said services as cargo handling services and are contesting the tax liability only after the proceedings have been initiated by the Revenue. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - appellant have collected service tax under Cargo Handling Service from various clients and deposited the same upon initiation of enquiry by the Revenue - it is not open to the assessee/appellant to contest the demand for extended period on the ground of their bonafideness. Penalties - Held that: - the impugned order fell in error in sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Original Authority vide order dated 10/12/2010. A service tax liability of ₹ 20,80,306/- was confirmed against the assessee/appellant alongwith penalty of equivalent amount under Section 78 and further penalties under Section 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order except setting aside the penalty under Section 76 on the ground that the legal provisions do not provide for imposition of simultaneous penalties under both Section 78 and 76. 2. The learned Counsel for the assessee/appellant submitted that they are basically transport contractors and are not to be taxed under Cargo Handling Service. The essence of the service rendered by the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act, the lower authorities proceeded with the documents submitted by the assessee/appellant alongwith deposition of the responsible person of the assessee/appellant. There is no error in the finding by the lower authorities regarding tax liability. However, the impugned order erred in setting aside the penalty under Section 76 by an erroneous finding that simultaneous penalties are not sustainable as per the legal provisions. The law as it was prevalent during the period of dispute is clear to the effect that penalties under Section 76 and 78 can be imposed simultaneously. The legal position has been clarified specifically by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Bajaj Travels Ltd. Vs. CST 2012 (25) S.T.R. 417 (Del.) as well as by Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises. Considering the quantification of consideration received alongwith the quantum of cargo handled, we are of the view that the assessee/appellant are essentially involved in cargo handling service and the transport being incidental to said activities. It is also noted that the assessee/ appellant did collect service tax from various clients under cargo handling service and upon enquiry by the Revenue, deposited an amount of ₹ 9.98 lakhs under the said category. It would appear that the assessee/appellant treated the said services as cargo handling services and are contesting the tax liability only after the proceedings have been initiated by the Revenue. 5. Regarding the reliance placed by the assessee/appellant on the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
