TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 767
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ointed out that this SCN merely alleges that the appellant had not taking registration and failed to file ST-3 return, he argue that is not a sufficient ground of invoking extended period of limitation. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kaur & Singh-1997 (94) ELT 289 (SC). He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HMM Limited 1995 (76) ELT 497 (SC). He further pointed out that the appellant were in the nature of sub contractor and, therefore, the bonafide belief that the main contractor would have paid the service tax. He further concedes that they have no evidence that the main contractor had paid the service tax. He further argued that the activity of cargo handling is for the purpose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pport of the claim that some of the activity undertaking by the appellant related to export of goods. He argued that without any evidence that the cargo handling activity was in relation to export of goods, no benefit of the same can be extended to the appellant. 5. Ld. Counsel at this point pointed out that it is onus of establishing that the service provided by the appellant fell under the description of cargo handling service was on revenue. He argued that unless revenue was able to establish that the service provided by the appellant was not in relation to export, no SCN could have been issued to them. 6. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that the appellant were undertaking the certain services. They have not denied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have exported part of the consignment. On perusal of the proceeding before lower authority, it is seen that no such claim was made by the appellant. First time this issue has been raised in Tribunal. Even in the appeal before Tribunal, there is no assertion to the effect that they are ready to produce any documents. It is seen that the appellant are not denied that the part of the service provided by them are not related to export. It is settled law that the onus of establishing of fact which is an exclusive knowledge of any person, is with that person. In the instant case, the evidence of having provided service in respect of export is solely available with the appellant, thus the onus of establish, the fact is on the appellant. Since the....