2018 (1) TMI 492

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr. Narender Singhvi, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jain, D.R. ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal, wherein, Service Tax demand of Rs. 4,49,39,311/- was confirmed alongwith interest and penalties on the appellant, on the ground that the activities ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant are classifiable under Cargo Handling Service & accordingly, the adjudged demands were confirmed. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the issue arising out of the present dispute with regard to classification of service under Cargo Handling is no more res-integra, in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself, reported in 2016 - TIO....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal has held that the services provided to M/s. SECL pursuant to the agreement, should not fall under the taxable category of Cargo Handling Service. The said decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as reported in 2017-TIOL 249 SC-ST. With regard to confirmation of Service Tax demand for hiring of Bulldozer under supply of tangible goods service, we find that the ....