TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OF 2008 - Dated:- 16-10-2008 - P. KARTHIKEYAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER M.N. Bharati for the Appellant. N.J. Kumaresh for the Respondent. ORDER 1. M/s. Coromondel Fertilizers Limited (CFL) constructed storage facility for liquid Ammonia in their factory premises. The facility was connected to berth in the sea by submerged pipeline. CFL used to store imported liquid Ammonia in the facility. They also allowed this facility to be used by M/s. Tamil Nadu Petrochemicals Ltd. (TPL) and M/s. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. (MFL) for storage of liquid Ammonia imported by them, In the case of TNPL and MFL, CFL arranged to receive the Ammonia at the berth in the sea at a distance of two and a half kilometers from shore and arranged to transport th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the service tax not paid as also to penalize them under various sections of the Act. 2. The proposals were contested by CFL. It was claimed that proposal to demand service tax had to clearly indicate the specific category of service which the party was alleged to have rendered. The notice had also not shown the period to which the demand pertained. Following enquiries initiated by the department they had furnished all relevant information by 24-5-2003. The demand was barred by limitation. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs.1,97,577 under the category of 'storage and warehousing service' rendered during 16-8-2002 to 31-3-2003. Penalties were imposed under sections 75A, 76 and 77. Applicable interest also was demanded. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice was issued more than a year after the appellant furnished the requisite information. The show-cause notice issued on 29-6-2004 was barred by limitation. Ld. SDR submits that proposing more than one service in the show-cause notice was not improper. The proper service under which the assessee had incurred liability to pay tax could be adjudicated only after hearing the assessee. The notice was not barred by limitation as the appellant had not filed the prescribed statutory returns in respect of the service it had rendered whereby the value of taxable service rendered by the appellant had escaped payment. In such a case, section 73(1)(a) of the Act which the show-cause notice invoked empowered the proper officer to demand service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
