9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Shri N. Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P.V. Subba Rao. 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 50/2009 (V-I) ST dated 27.04.2009. 2. The appellant herein is engaged in the provision of cargo handling service to M/s Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd (NFCL) at the port. He received imported urea and transported it to the warehouses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the additional amount which they have billed their clients is only towards transportation and cannot be as a cargo handling service and therefore such amounts cannot be taxed. A show cause notice was issued on 06.03.2008 demanding the differential duty along with interest. It was also proposed to impose penalties under Sec.76, 77 & 78. After following due process, the lower authority confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e services provided by the appellant is only cargo handling service which is admitted by the appellant and such handling also required some transportation and this cannot be vivisected as a separate transportation service. In case of the new siding also the job is exactly identical with some additional effort and hence an additional amount was charged by the appellants from their clients. This by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te as Rs. 39PMT. The subsequent bills dated 14.11.2006, 23.11.2006 available in the paper book also show that the additional amount has been charged towards "Additional expenditure for transportation and other expenses incurred for loading rakes at Marripalem siding". We find from the above that although the initial correspondence between the appellant and their client was only towards additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
