2026 (5) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... amounting to Rs.91,519/- as 8% of the value of alleged exempted service of export cargo handling of food grains at godown and railway yard for the period 2008-09, and 'Supply of tangible goods' for the period prior to 16.05.2008, and ii) Cenvat credit amounting to Rs 45,470/- availed as input service credit of service tax paid on repair of cars, residential telephone. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel during the hearing submits that; handling of export cargo is excluded from service tax and therefore cannot be treated as exempted service; the Appellants carry out the activity of handling of cargo which is exported from Mangalore port and the Appellants ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....05.2018 and it is not legal to treat a particular service as exempted service by applying definition of exempted services given in Rules, when the statute which empowers the Rule itself does not cover such a service. Further, there was no definition for 'service' under Finance Act, 1994 or under any Rules made thereunder during the period in dispute. Therefore, an activity cannot be called as 'service' without a definition under the Act. 7. The learned counsel placed reliance in this regard on the following decisions a. Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs CST, Mumbai- 2020 (8) TMI 786- CESTAT MUMBAI b. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai- 2019 (12) TMI 1127-CESTAT MUMBAI c. Ingers....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... set aside. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: a. Singh Brothers vs. CCE 2009 (14) STR. 552 (Tri-Del) b. Studioline Interior Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE 2006 (201) ELT 250 (Tri Bangl c. CCE Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments 1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC) d. Padmini Products Vs. CCE 1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC) e. Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd., Vs. CCE 2005 (188) ELT 149 (SC) 9. The learned counsel submits that penalty under Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not imposable and placed reliance on the decision in the case of M/s. Flyingman Air Courier Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in (2004) 170 EL.T. 417. 10. The learned counsel submits that penalty under section 78 read with Rul....