TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 52452 OF 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50686/2022 - Dated:- 27-7-2022 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P V SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) None for the Appellant Shri Harshvardhan, Authorized Representative for the Department ORDER This appeal is directed against the order dated January 06, 2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), by which the order dated July 14, 2014 passed by the Joint Commissioner dropping the demand made in the show cause notice has been set aside by holding that the services provided by the appellant would be liable to service tax under cargo handling service . 2. The appellant claims to be providing transport of goods by road service specified in section 65 (50b) of the F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicating Authority, by a detailed order dated July 14, 2014, dropped the proceedings initiated by show cause notice dated October 18, 2012. It held that the appellant had provided goods transport agency service and not cargo handling service and the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below: 22. As per the clarifications issued by the CBEC vide letter D.O.F. No. 334/1/2008-TRU dated. 29.02.2008, in the case of a transaction containing a major and ancillary elements, classification is to be determined based on the essential features or the dominant element of the transaction and a supply that comprises a single supply from an economic point of view should not be artificially split. The CBEC clarified that a composite service, even if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e services rendered by the assessee are that of Transport of goods, the question of suppression of facts and contravention of various provisions of the Act, as alleged in the notice, does not arise at all. Therefore, in the present case, no penalty is imposable on the assessee as element of suppression is absent. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, set aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and held that the services provided by the appellant would fall under cargo handling service leviable to service tax. 6. Despite service of the notice, learned counsel for the appellant has not appeared. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department made submissions and supported the impugned order. 7. The i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
