TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing of (i) Transportation, Bundling and Feeding of Bamboo, (ii) Unloading of Bamboo from Railway wagons and shifting from Railway Siding to Bamboo Yard, and (iii) Coal Ash Transportation, unloading/shifting of SSP/Ind.Salt from Railway wagons to godown. It is his submission that while demanding the service tax under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS), the show-cause notice does not mention the relevant clause of Section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994 and therefore, the impugned show-cause notice is non-est. The ld. C.A. submits that in respect of similar services, a show-cause notice was issued to their sister concern, namely, M/s Shree Shubham Syndicate, under the category of Cargo Handling Services. It was held that the activity of shifting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute that the Applicants have been providing services on behalf of their clients. He submits that even though the Applicant took registration under the category of BAS since, 2010 and started paying service tax, but for the past period, he did not provide any information in spite of repeated request followed by summons. Accordingly, the Applicants have deliberately withheld the relevant information so as to complete the investigation in time. Moreover, it is ample clear that the Applicant was in knowledge of service tax liability as they themselves started paying service tax from September, 2010, that non-taking of registration and non-payment of service tax for the prior period amounts of suppression of facts on behalf of the Applicant. He ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough does not mention the specific clause of Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994, the definition of BAS, however, is clearly spelt out in the impugned show-cause notice alleging that the Applicant has provided aforesaid services for and on behalf of their clients. We find that the ld. Commissioner has, after considering the relevant facts, arrived on the conclusion that in the present case, the Applicant was involved in rendering services which are incidental and auxiliary to the service of "procurement of goods from services, which are inputs for client" falling under Clause (iv) and hence would fall under clause (vii) of Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended. We also find that the ld.Commissioner has categorically reco....