Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Narayan Builders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Narayan Builders vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 03, 2008
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46739

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayan Builders

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

the applicants filed this application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. the appeal was filed within the normal period of limitation. however, the registry of the tribunal returned the appeal papers to remove the defects, and therefore, after removing the defects appeal was again filed. in these circumstances delay in filing the appeal is condoned.2. the applicants have filed stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of rs. 7,55,357/- and penalty. the applicants had already deposited rs. 1 lakh at the time of hearing before the commissioner (appeals). in this case demand is confirmed by considering the applicants as provider of cargo handling service. the applicants, under contract, are undertaking the job of coal handling system. the applicants were unloading the coal wagons, crushing and conveying and feeding of coal to stock pile or bunkers through conveyer belts. i find that the hon'ble high court of rajasthan in the case of s.b.construction co. v. u.o.i. reported in 2006 (4) s.t.r. 545 (raj.) has held that similar service is not covered under the scope of cargo handling system. in view of the above position the pre-deposit of service tax and penalty is waived. stay petition is allowed.

Full Judgment

The applicants filed this application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was filed within the normal period of limitation. However, the Registry of the Tribunal returned the appeal papers to remove the defects, and therefore, after removing the defects appeal was again filed. In these circumstances delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The applicants have filed stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 7,55,357/- and penalty. The applicants had already deposited Rs. 1 lakh at the time of hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case demand is confirmed by considering the applicants as provider of cargo handling service. The applicants, under contract, are undertaking the job of coal handling system. The applicants were unloading the coal wagons, crushing and conveying and feeding of coal to stock pile or bunkers through conveyer belts. I find that the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of S.B.Construction Co. v. U.O.I. reported in 2006 (4) S.T.R. 545 (Raj.) has held that similar service is not covered under the scope of cargo handling system. In view of the above position the pre-deposit of service tax and penalty is waived. Stay petition is allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial