CCE Vs. ASIAN CRANES AND ENGG. SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals are arising out of common order and both the appeals are being taken up together for disposal.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee are providing services to M/s. Nestle India Ltd. in their premises in relation to RMG/EOT crane operations for handling/staking of containers alongwith the requisite manpower to M/s. Nestle India Ltd. Show cause notice dated 21.02.2007 was issued proposing to demand of tax under the category of storage and warehousing services, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services and Management or Maintenance or Repair Services for the period 1.1.2006 to September, 2006, which is pending before the Adjudicating Authority. Subsequently, another show cause notice dated 5.2.2008 was issued on the same services demanding tax of Rs. 6,04,025/ - for the earlier period 1.4.2003 to 31.12.2005, which is the subject matter in the present case. The Original Authority confirmed the demand of tax and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed penalty under Section 77 and 76 of the Act. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) held that demand of tax on Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services and Storage & Warehousing Services are not sustainable. He upheld the demand of tax on Management, Maintenance or Repair Services during the period 2003 -2004 and 2004 -2005 and also extended the exemption benefit for the year 2005 -2006. He also imposed penalty under Section 78 and set aside the penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Act. Hence, the assessee filed the appeal against the demand of tax on Maintenance or Repair Services and penalties. Revenue filed appeal for imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Act.

(3.) LD . DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the assessee admitted the acceptance of the amount from M/s. Nestle India Ltd. in respect of Repair/Maintenance Services, which was not disclosed to the Department. He also submits that such evidences establish the suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax. He also submits that the assessee had not filed Return in respect of Repair or Maintenance etc.