Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
N.C.Paul&Amp;Co. vs Coms,C.Ex - Bolpur on 17 December, 2019 cites

Vishal Traders vs Cce Kolhapur on 8 January, 2019

However, in the case of Vishal Traders Vs. CCE cited supra and Singh Brothers Vs. CCE cited supra and Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. cited supra, the Tribunal taking note of genuine interpretation dilemma in the trade and within the department during the infancy stage of levy, has confined the demand to normal period of limitation and has set aside the penalties. Accordingly, in respect of work orders for hiring of pay loaders for loading of coal at railway siding for outward transportation, we uphold the tax demand on merit but restrict such levy to the normal time limit and set aside the penalties.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S. Pritam Singh Hunjan & Brothers vs C.C.E., Chandigarh-I on 24 March, 2014

However, in the case of Vishal Traders Vs. CCE cited supra and Singh Brothers Vs. CCE cited supra and Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. cited supra, the Tribunal taking note of genuine interpretation dilemma in the trade and within the department during the infancy stage of levy, has confined the demand to normal period of limitation and has set aside the penalties. Accordingly, in respect of work orders for hiring of pay loaders for loading of coal at railway siding for outward transportation, we uphold the tax demand on merit but restrict such levy to the normal time limit and set aside the penalties.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., R.R. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 5 September, 2001

16. We find that the Service Tax demand on the activity of hiring of pay loader for loading of coal into railway wagon at railway siding for outward transportation is taxable under the category of Cargo Handling Service as held by the Tribunal in the case of Gajanand Agarwal Vs. CCE reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 138 (Tri. - Kol.).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Shreem Coal Carriers (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 7 August, 2014

9. Per contra the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Respondent supports the impugned Order. It is submitted by him that the services provided by the Appellant is clearly taxable under the category of Cargo Handling Services. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Shreem Coal Carriers (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R. 1067 (Tri.-Mum.)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise Customs ... vs M/S Singh Transporters on 8 August, 2017

as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 (16) G.S.T.L. J78 (SC) and CCE Vs. Singh Transporters reported in 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 3 (SC). As regards the demand of Service Tax of Rs.27,99,603/-, he submits that the said demand is raised on activities of loading at pit head for internal transportation and also loading at railway siding into railway wagon for outward transportation and under the contract separate rates are provided. It is submitted by him that loading of coal at pit head for internal movement inside the mines cannot be classified under the category of Cargo Handling Service.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Sanik Mining & Allied Services Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Bhopal on 28 July, 2015

The Ld. Advocate relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2008 (9) S.T.R. 531 (Tri.-Del.) and Final Order No.76815/2018 dated 11-10-2018, in the case of Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd., in Appeal No.ST/91/2008-DB. The Ld. Advocate further submits that the railway sidings are located within the mines and loading of coal at the railway siding inside the mines into railway wagons for outward transportation also cannot be classified under the category of Cargo Handling Service. He further submits that in the 4 S.Tax Appeal No.132/2009 show cause notice there is no allegations that the Appellant is a cargo handling agent and what is handled is nothing but cargo, hence, in absence of twin requirement of Section 65(23), the tax cannot be levied upon them under the category of Cargo Handling Service, by implication.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1