2019 (6) TMI 514

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MCL), Burla and M/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Raigarh (SECL) for the period 2005-2006. The appellant took registration on 04.03.2005 under Cargo Handling Service and started payment of service tax under the said category. But the Department noticed that the appellant failed to include the consideration received in respect of several work orders handled by them. After perusing the work orders, show-cause notice dated 23.04.2008, was issued proposing demand of service tax totally amounting to Rs. 20,05,216/-. At the time of initial adjudication, the Order-in-Original dated 17.12.2008, was passed by the Additional Commissioner, in which, the service tax demand to the extent of Rs. 16,92,765/- was confirmed along with interest and penaltie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 2006 (197) ELT 465 (S.C.) will apply. (iii) He further submitted that the issue on merit is decided against the appellant in the case of Sainik Mining and Allied Service Ltd. Vs. CCEx. & S.Tax, BBSR I vide Final Order No.FO/76815/2018 dated 11.10.2018 as well as in the case of Gajanand Agarwal Vs. Commissioner reported in 2009 (13) STR 138 (Tri.-Kolkata). He also added that in the above two decisions, the demand for service tax has been restricted to normal time limit and he also prayed that the demand in the present case, if at all, may be restricted to normal time limit. 5. The ld.D.R. justified t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was carried by the Appellants was to load the cargo i.e. coal in the Railway wagons. Such an activity squarely falls under the definition of cargo handling service! provided by Section 65(23) read with Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1944 (sic) (1994) and brings the appellants to the fold of law for such service provided. Accordingly we decline to intervene to the orders passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority except in the matter of penalty which we consider not imposable on the facts and circumstances of the case. We intervene to the Revisional order involved in Appeal case No. 41/06 and waive entire penalty imposed finding no justification of imposition since there was no willful suppression. We noticed that the appellants had no....