Case Law Details
Shree Mohangarh Construction Co. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT New Delhi)
The first contract is supply of river sand; it is not for loading or unloading any cargo. Needless to say that if somebody has to supply river sand it has to loaded into the truck and unloaded it at the customer’s destination. The nature of the contract remains to be one of supply of river sand and it cannot change into a contract for some other service. As far as the second part is concerned, the contract is evidently for transportation of goods and the appellant has been discharging service tax under Goods Transport Agency service. Merely because transportation also requires the appellant to load and unload goods, it cannot be said that the appellant has performed cargo handling service. This view with respect to the demand for an earlier period for these services was already taken by this Bench in Final order No. 50287 of 2019 and we find no reason to deviate from it.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
This appeal is filed assailing order-in-original No. JOD-EXCUS-000-COM-0009-14-15 dated 20/03/2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jodhpur.
2. The appellant is engaged in providing various services and has been discharging service tax. It was felt by the Department that they have not fully discharged their service tax liability and, therefore, the differential service tax needs to be recovered from them. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 19/05/2014 was issued to them demanding the same alongwith interest and proposing to impose penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
