9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax demand of Rs. 53,15,825. Interest under section 75 has been demanded. Further, penalties have also been imposed. 2. S/Shri G. Shivadass and Siddarth Srivastav, learned advocates appeared on behalf of the appellant. 3. The issue involved is as follows:- The appellants M/s. Cairns Energy is engaged in the common endeavour of exploration of oil resources in Ravva field as per Production Sharing Contract (PSC) dated 28-10-1994. At the insistence of Central Government, a Joint Venture (JV) consisting of ONGC, M/s. Cairns Energy (P.) Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Command Petroleum) M/s. Videocon Petroleum and M/s. Ravva Oils, Singapore collectively known as participants was formed for exploration and development of petroleum resources, parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said facilities, which receives the crude produced by the Joint Venture and the two oils of M/s. ONGC and of Joint Venture get mixed. As and when required, the transported commingled crude will be transferred through pipeline to ocean tankers. A Bill of Lading is issued by the Master of the vessel, accordingly showing ONGC as the consignor and customer of ONGC as consignee. For using such facilities, M/s. ONGC is paying the appellant fixed charges of 20,000US$ per month as Tolling charges at 38 Cents per barrel of oil transported and Port Charges at Rs.15 per tonne of oil transported in terms of the clause 11 of the Contract for Oil Transfer Services. With effect from 1-5-2006, the appellants are registered with the Service Tax department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued on 15-12-2006 for the subsequent period 1-2-2004 to 31-3-2006 alleging that the services rendered by the appellants are liable to Service Tax under the category of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' Services. The show-cause notice proposed to demand Service Tax of Rs. 53,15,825 under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. There was a proposal to levy interest and also imposed penalties. The appellants filed their reply and personal hearing was given, however, the Commissioner rejected the submissions made by the appellant and passed the impugned Order-in-Original No. 23/2008, dated 25-3-2008. 4. It was submitted that this issue has already been decided in favour of the appellant for the earlier period in the Final Order Nos. 578 & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be invoked as the department was in the knowledge of the things. So the department cannot invoke longer period in the subsequent show-cause notice. That the port fee which is a reimbursable expenses cannot also be subjected to any Service Tax as it is not a receipt in relation to any taxable service rendered by the appellants. 5. It is seen that the issue in the present appeal is identical to the above case. In view of this, we are bound to follow the ratio of our own decision in the said final order. It was pointed out that the department has gone in appeal against the said final order to the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. However, there is no stay of operation of the Tribunal's order. In these circumstances, respectfully, follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
