https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209457 On whether the appellant's activities constituted "cargo handling service" under the Finance Act, 1994, the HC held that the contractual terms showed the appellant rendered cargo handling to the service recipient and was liable to service tax on the gross consideration; the demand with interest and penalty was sustained. On invocation of the extended limitation under s.73, the HC found deliberate non-registration, non-payment, non-filing of returns, and non-disclosure of material facts indicating intent to evade, justifying the extended period; the show cause notice was held within five years. On jurisdiction, the HC held the Asst. Commissioner validly exercised quasi-judicial adjudication powers, and the subsequent notification did not negate competence; the appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 12:47:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209457 On whether the appellant's activities constituted "cargo handling service" under the Finance Act, 1994, the HC held that the contractual terms showed the appellant rendered cargo handling to the service recipient and was liable to service tax on the gross consideration; the demand with interest and penalty was sustained. On invocation of the extended limitation under s.73, the HC found deliberate non-registration, non-payment, non-filing of returns, and non-disclosure of material facts indicating intent to evade, justifying the extended period; the show cause notice was held within five years. On jurisdiction, the HC held the Asst. Commissioner validly exercised quasi-judicial adjudication powers, and the subsequent notification did not negate competence; the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209457