AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1003
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest and an equivalent amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, has been imposed on the appellant. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the business of ferrous recycling industry and the domestic ferrous scrap processing sector. The appellant has specialized expertise in recycling and processing of ferrous scrap as well as trading of the iron and steel scrap. 2.1 On 04.07.2012, the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) issued a tender Notice on 04.07.2012 (No.BSL/MKTG/SD/01/12-13/), for recovery of Ferrous Scrap and sale of processed ferrous scrap (70150mm) through magnetic separator and recovered, processed ferrous scrap of chargeable size (150mm to one tone) and recovered iron ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.4 As per the tender notice, the appellant had to pay service charges of Rs.1708 per tonne (excluding service tax and education cess) for recovery, processing, transportation, enroute weighment and delivery of ferrous scrap to SMS/BF. 2.5 On 23.10.2012, the appellant having participated in the bid was declared successful and work having been awarded, the appellant was given a Sale Offer Letter on 23.10.2012, being the highest bidder for purchase of approximately 1 lakh ton of processed ferrous scrap at pre-decided rate in terms of offer letter. 2.6 Undisputedly and undeniably, in discharge of the works, the appellant carried out the excavation of slag dumps and also carried out the processing of the slag dumps through various mean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said service provider for M/s. SAIL has not been cleared by M/s. SAIL, Bokaro, to other independent buyer or in the open market except to the service provider i.e. M/s. International Commerce Ltd. Therefore, it appears that this practice, i.e. selling/clearing of processed scrap (processed by the said service provider for M/s. SAIL) to the said service provider is going on only as per terms and condition of Work Order(s) awarded to the said service provider by M/s. SAIL Bokaro and M/s. SAIL Bokaro, are bound to do so as per sale clause offered to the said service provider which appears nothing but extra consideration to the said service provider which is being availed by the said service provider during/after provision of services". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only question therefore is, if at all there is any violation of clauses of tender or work order between the appellant and Steel Authority of India ? 3.3 He contends that if at all, the income earned by the sister concern of the appellant can be added to the valuation of service charges paid by Steel Authority to the appellant, because of further sale of processed material by SAIL to the sister concern ? 3.4 He further submits that if the allegation is that of violation of tender conditions by the appellant, during the continuation of the contract is concerned, it is for the Steel Authority of India Limited to take action against the appellant for breach of contract and it is not required to lookout the Service Tax Department to look ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, i.e., the Steel Authority of India Limited and not this appellant. 3.8 Finally he submits that the entire proceeding is even vitiated, since the show cause notice has been issued beyond the normal period of limitation of 18 months, since, there was no suppression or willful misrepresentation or misstatement on the part of the appellant herein much less, any allegation of fraud attributable to it, hence the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. 3.9 He, therefore, prays, that after setting aside the impugned order, the appeal be allowed. 4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue, has justified the impugned order. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that in this case, it is admitte....