TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d is engaged in providing services of packing and loading/unloading of cement into wagons and trucks for the clients. It appeared to Revenue, that during the period prior to 16/06/2005 (March 2003 to 15/06/2005), appellant had provided services to various cement plants for loading/unloading of cement (cargo) at the sites and had received payments for services which were appropriately covered under the category 'cargo handling services', made taxable with effect from 16/08/2002. The appellant had not been paying service tax on the same. 3. On scrutiny of the documents of the appellant, it was noticed that they have entered into agreement dated 15/01/2003 with various cement plants. One of them is Prism Cements Ltd., located within the jur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....005. He also stated that they have not undertaken cargo handling service as the services rendered by them fall under the category of "Manpower Recruitment Agency". They are not providing any machinery, tools, truck, pay loader etc. to the cement plant. They are providing only manpower to the service receiver company, hence they are not liable to pay service tax under the category of "Cargo Handling Services". Although, the workers are under their control and not in the muster roll of the service receiver company. That they are paying wages to their workers. 5. On enquiry with the Central Excise office at Raipur, the DGCEI learnt that a show cause notice had been issued to the appellant for the services provided by them at the premises of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Total 12484921/- 1065099/- 9166/- 10,74,265/- 6. Accordingly, the SCN demanded service tax of Rs. 10,74,265/- invoking the extended period of limitation along with interest and further penalties were proposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. 7. The SCN was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 3.01.2012. 8. Being an ex parte order, in reply to the show cause notice, one Chartered Accountant, Shri Kanitkar and company had appeared and had sought adjournment from time to time and several adjournments were allowed during the period 15/09/2009 to 13/10/2011. But neither reply to the show cause notice was filed nor the counsel appeared for hearing in spite of being noticed that the date fixed for 13/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not apply for registration nor declared taxable value and did not file ST-3 returns for the period under dispute, nor paid service tax. The appellant was required to file the ST-3 returns. 10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the issue in question is covered in their favour by an order No. 01/2011 dated 21.01.2011 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellant's own case where the similar agreement has been entered with M/s Rajashree Cement. He further submitted that activities performed by the appellant in the present case cannot be held to be covered under 'Cargo Handling Services'. He further submitted that they are only performing supportive and ancillary role in the mechanized process of packing and unloading.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He also relied upon the following decision to support its pleas: i) Lakhan Singh & Co. vs. CCE, Jaipur-2016 (46) STR 297 (Tri.Del.) ii) Sarvodaya Shramik Samiti vs. CCE, Bhopal -2017 (52) STR 293 (Tri. Del.) iii) Coal Carriers vs. CCE&ST, BBSR-2011 (24) STR 395 (Orissa) iv) Gajanand Agarwal vs. CCE, BBSR-2009 (13) STR 138 (Tri.) He further submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly confired invokation of extended period of limitation & imposition of penalties. 12. Having considered the rival contentions & perusal of records, we find that terms & condition of contract mentioned in the final order No. 01/2011 dated 21.01.2011, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore, is similar to the show cause notice dated....