2014 (8) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri K.M. Mondal, Spl Counsel for Revenue PER : S. S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby a demand of service tax of Rs. 10,75,21,055/- is confirmed with interest and penalties were also imposed. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellants received consideration for providing the following taxable services:- (i) Break....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....)(zzi). 3. The Revenue is of the view that the appellant had not paid appropriate service tax in respect of the above mentioned taxable services. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant had paid appropriate service tax in respect of all the services except Break Bulk Fees (BBF). The appellant produced evidence regarding deposit of service tax of Rs. 6,23,13,126/-. The same h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed or to be provided by any person to any person, by an aircraft operator, in relation to transport of goods by aircraft. The demand is confirmed in the adjudication order treating this activity as cargo handling service hence the impugned order is beyond the scope of show cause notice. The appellant also argued that the consideration which is in respect of BBF is in respect of exported goods henc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not aircraft operators. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order confirmed this demand under 'cargo handling service'. The appellants were not put to notice regarding confirming the demand under the category of cargo handling service whereas in the show cause notice the demand was on the ground that the appellants were providing transportation of goods by air service. In these circums....