TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.2013, cargo handling service was also included in the registration. 3. During the impugned period, the appellant has rendered 'cargo handling services' in respect of agricultural produce. Therefore, the appellant claimed that they were under the bona fide belief that such services of cargo handling rendered by them in relation to agricultural products fell outside the purview of Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 10/2002 dated 01.08.2002. In respect of the services of renting of immovable property, the appellant claimed that they have discharged their Service Tax liability. 4. The appellant opted for the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013 and made an application thereunder on 10.12.2013 vide Form VCES-1 before the concerned authority. In the said declaration filed under the VCES, the appellant declared their tax due for the period from October, 2007 to December, 2013 as Rs.4,90,160/- including cess. 5. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice bearing No. VCES/06 dated 24.07.2104 came to be issued on the ground that the VCES application submitted by the appellant was substantially false and the appellant had purportedly not disclosed their true ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion benefit of Notification No. 10/2002 dated 01.08.2002 has been denied and confirmed the demand, charged interest and imposed penalties and appropriated the amount already paid under VCES. The order passed by the ld. adjudicating authority is wholly erroneous for non-consideration of the submissions in its entirety and the benefit of the exemption notification. There is no dispute in respect of submission of 35 nos. of bills involving handling of agricultural produce. (iv) There is also no dispute that at the time of search and seizure the bills in respect of cargo handling against agricultural produce were also seized and still in their possession. There is also no dispute about correctness of those 35 nos. of invoices. The Department also did not make any verification from the consignees end to satisfy themselves about the authenticity of the transaction. In paragraph 5.2.8, the ld. adjudicating authority had observed that such verification was unwarranted since authenticity of the transaction was not disputed. The ld. adjudicating authority has totally mis-directed himself by proceeding on the basis that the appellant's service were in nature of GTA service and since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant has not contested the demand raised against them in this regard and claimed that they have already paid their Service Tax liability to this extent. The appellant has not disputed their service tax liability on this service in the impugned order. Therefore, we do not interfere with the demand confirmed against the appellant under the category of 'renting of immovable property service' in the impugned order. 11. As per the table reproduced above, during the period under dispute, an amount of Rs.267,567,545/- has been received by the appellant under the category of 'cargo handling service', out of which an amount of Rs.2,63,718,501/- is claimed to be pertaining to 'cargo handling service in respect of agricultural products'. We find that this amount matches with the amount on which service tax has been demanded in the impugned order. The contention of the appellant in this regard is that such cargo handling services rendered in relation to agricultural produce, is exempt from levy of Service Tax by virtue of Notification No. 10/2002 dated 01.08.2002; that in view of the above exemption, they have worked out the appropriate Service Tax liability on such services and discharg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ultural produce such as "onion", "grapes", "spices", etc., which are specifically exempted by way of the above Notification. It is also observed from the said invoices that the appellant has mentioned the exemption claimed by them under Notification No. 10/2002 dated 10.08.2002 therein. In support of their claim, the appellant has also produced the Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant, Sh. Ashok Kumar Agarwala. 11.5. Considering the above, we find that the cargo handling services rendered by the appellant in connection with agricultural produce are specifically exempted vide Notification No. 10/2002 dated 01.08.2002. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellant has correctly arrived at the tax liability by excluding the value of cargo handling services in relation to agricultural produce rendered by them. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence being brought on record to the contrary by the Revenue, we do not find any reason to sustain the demand of Service Tax raised against the appellant in this regard and accordingly, the same is set aside. 12. The appellant has also challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. We f....