Case Details: Ganesh Trading Company Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guwahati (2025) 27 Centax 280 (Tri.-Cal)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) & K. Anpazhakan, Member (T)
- Shri J.K. Mittal, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee was engaged in providing services, including transportation, bundling and feeding of bamboo, unloading bamboo from railway wagons, shifting from railway siding to bamboo yards, and coal ash transportation. The Revenue issued a show-cause notice dated 22.10.2013, demanding service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) for the period from 01.10.2008 to 30.09.2013. The assessee contested the demand on the grounds that the extended period of limitation was inapplicable, as the Department had prior knowledge of the assessee’s activities since 20.06.2010. Additionally, a parallel show-cause notice was issued to the assessee’s sister concern, classifying identical activities under Cargo Handling Service, demonstrating the Department’s uncertainty regarding the correct tax classification. The assessee further argued that the show-cause notice was defective, as it failed to specify the applicable clause under BAS. For the period post 01.07.2012, the assessee contended that no demand was raised under the negative list regime. The matter was adjudicated before the Kolkata CESTAT.
CESTAT Held
The Hon’ble Kolkata CESTAT held that the demand raised under Business Auxiliary Service was unsustainable. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked, as the Department was aware of the assessee’s activities since 20.06.2010. Furthermore, the show-cause notice was defective, as it failed to specify the particular clause under BAS. The Tribunal also observed that the Revenue itself was uncertain whether the services fell under BAS or Cargo Handling Service, further weakening the demand’s validity. For the period post 01.07.2012, the Tribunal ruled that no demand was sustainable, as no assessment was made under the negative list regime. Consequently, the demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.
List of Cases Cited
- Collector v. Pradyumna Steel Ltd. — 1996 (82) E.L.T. 441 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Paras 4, 12]
- Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation v. Commissioner — 2014 (36) S.T.R. 1291 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 3.1, 10]
