2024 (2) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....09.2013, the appellant was engaged for providing the services to their clients, comprising of (a) Transportation, Bundling and Feeding of Bamboo, (b) Unloading of Bamboo from Railway Wagons and shifting from Railway Siding to Bamboo Yard and (c) Coal Ash Transportation, unloading/shifting of SSP/Ind. Salt from Railway Wagons to go-down. 2.1 The Revenue is of the view that the said activity undertaken by the appellant falls under the Business Auxiliary Service, therefore, they are required to pay service tax and the appellant did not pay the service tax. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 22.10.2013 was issued to the appellant by invoking extended period of limitation. 2.2 The appellant contested the matter before the adjudicating....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is further submitted that the no particular Clause of Business Auxiliary Service has been invoked to demand the service tax from the appellant. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. 3.3 It is further submitted that the activity of the appellant was known to the Department much prior to issuance of show-cause notice and on 20.06.2010, when an enquiry was made for service tax liability under Business Auxiliary Service and no proceedings were initiated thereafter. In that circumstances also, the extended period of limitation is not invokable as the activity was known to the Department much prior to issuance of show-cause notice i.e. 20.06.2010. 3.4 He further submitted that without prejudice, the activity at the most can be said tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... activity undertaken by the appellant was known to the Department much prior to issuance of show-cause notice i.e. 20.06.2010, when Revenue issued a letter to the appellant, which is as under :   But no proceedings were initiated against the appellant. 7. In that circumstances also, we hold that the extended period of limitation is not invokable. 8. Further, we find that in this case, the demand of service tax has been raised against the appellant under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and no particular clause of Business Auxiliary Service has been charged against the appellant. Therefore, the show-cause notice is defective. 9. Further, post 01.07.2012, the negative list regime came into force and all the neg....