TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advocate for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri Bijay Kumar Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. In the impugned order, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has dropped the demand raised vide show cause notice C. No. IV (6) 18/CE/CPU/B-II/2006/18993A dated-08.12.2006 amounting to Rs. 63,53,687/- for the period September, 2005 to June, 2006. 2. Brief fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 69 of Finance Act, 1994 and also Rule 6 of Service Tax Rule, 1994. It is the contention of Respondent that they were under the bonafide belief that they are not liable for payment of Service Tax. 3. Vide the impugned order, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has held that the classification of the service being performed by the respondent will not fall under the ambit of Service Tax considering the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s), which was made chargeable to Service Tax w.e.f. 18-06-2007 only. Such operations under a composite contract cannot be treated as 'Site formation' or 'Cargo Handling Service' before 18-06-2007. 7. In view of the above observations and settled proposition of law appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by setting aside the Order-in-Original dated-10-10-2011 passed by the adjudicating authority....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iness Auxiliary Service which cannot be permitted at this juncture. While holding so, we rely upon the following case laws: i) Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST-2016 (45) STR 549 Tri-Del. ii) Balaji Contractors Vs. CCE-2017 (52) STR 259 Tri-Del. iii) Prabhudas Kishoredas Vs. CST-2011 (24) STR 711 Tri.-Ahmd. iv) ISE Securities & Services Vs. CST-2013 (32) STR 442 Tri-Mum. v) JSEL Securities....