2013 (8) TMI 291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant, it was found that they were providing certain services to M/s Binani Cement Ltd. in relation to clearing and forwarding and were receiving payment from them under the head contract receipt. Total amount received under the head contract receipt during the period from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 was Rs. 1,05,52,839/-. The department was of the view that this amount had been received for providing C&F agents service to M/s Binani Cement Ltd. and hence the same is chargeable to service tax, which has not been paid. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 12/9/05 was issued invoking a longer limitation period under proviso to Section 73 (1) of Finance Act, 1994 for (a) recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 6,59,788/- from the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cordingly he confirmed the above-mentioned service tax demand alongwith interest and imposed penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 1.3 On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the above order of the Joint Commissioner was upheld vide order-in-appeal dated 3/1/08. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order relied upon Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 355 (Tri. LB), wherein it had been held that service tax under Section 65 (105) (j) readwith Section 65 (25) would be attracted even if a person is providing either clearing service or forwarding service or both and that for attracting service tax under this section providing of both cleari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai (supra) is not correct. 4. Shri Nagesh Pathak, learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in it. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. It is not disputed that only activity of the appellant is only (a) providing labour for unloading of the goods at the rail heads, loading into the trucks for transport from rail-head to godown and unloading and stacking of the cement at the godown ; and (b) arranging the dispatch of the goods as per the instructions of M/s Binani Cement and maintaining record of receipt and dispatch. 7. The dispatch of the go....