2008 (10) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri L.B.Yadav, Authorised Departmental Representative (DR) for appellant Shri Ashok Kothari, Consultant for respondent [Order per S. S. Kang, Vice President] - Heard both sides. The revenue filed Misc. application for raising additional grounds challenging the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby it is held that demand is time barred. Misc. applica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for service tax and Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that these handling charges are not to be included in the assessable value of the service tax for the purpose of levy of service tax. The revenue also submitted that the demand is not time barred as earlier SCN was issued for the period April-99 to Sept-2000. The respondent had not filed any return nor they have paid the service tax and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TR.503. 5. We find that in the present case a composite contract was entered by the respondent for providing service of consignment agent as per the terms and conditions of the contract. We have gone through the decision relied upon by the respondent in the case of E. V. Mathai & Co.(supra). We find that there are separate contract entered for services rendered as C&F agent and in respect of tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respect of the handling charges. In these circumstances, we find that impugned order is not sustainable and set aside. The appeal filed by the revenue is allowed. 6. In respect of imposition of penalty, we find that the respondent filed necessary declaration under Amnesty scheme on 2004.  As per Amnesty scheme, the assessee who has not registered or not paid the service tax, are not liabl....