JUDGMENT :

ABHAY AHUJA, J.

1. The Petitioner, a Company incorporated as APL (India) Pvt. Ltd. under the Companies Act, 2013 which entity vide order dated 15 November 2017 of the National Company Law Tribunal, merged with CMACGM Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd., is engaged inter-alia in the business of providing services under the category of Steamer Agent service, Cargo Handling service, Business Support Service, GTA and Business Auxiliary service and has offices across India for providing the said services.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that during the relevant period, various offices of the Petitioner were holding separate service tax registrations with their respective jurisdictional Commissionerate; accordingly, the Delhi office of the Petitioner was holding Service Tax Registration No.AABCA2731NST002 under the jurisdiction of Range-12, Service Tax Division-II, Service Tax Commissionerate, New Delhi.

3. Pursuant to an audit conducted for the period 2004-05 to 2007-08, the Delhi office of the Petitioner was issued a Show Cause cum Demand Notice No.59 of 2009 dated 12 October 2009 (the “show cause cum demand notice”) by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why :

“(i) Service tax amounting to Rs.5,07,70,296/-; Education Cess and Secondary High Education Cess amounting to Rs.14,02,755/-, as detailed in para 3 of the show cause notice, should not be demanded under Section 66, 67 and 68 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) and recovered by invoking extended period of limitation as provided under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act.

(ii) Service tax amounting to Rs. 48,22,124/-; Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess amounting to Rs. 81,580/-, as detailed in para 4 of the show cause notice, should not be demanded under Section 66, 67 and 68 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Rules and recovered by invoking extended period of limitation as provided under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act.

(iii) Service tax amounting to Rs. 41,83,916/-; Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess amounting to Rs. 54,721/-, as detailed in para 5 of the show cause notice, should not be demanded under Section 66, 67 and 68 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Rules read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Rules and recovered from the Petitioner by invoking extended period of limitation as provided under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act.

(iv) The interest should not be charged and recovered from the Petitioner under Section 75 of the Act.

(v) Penalty in terms of Section 76 of the Act should not be imposed upon the Petitioner for failure to pay Service tax as and when this payment became due.

(vi) Penalty in terms of Section 77(2) of the Act should not be imposed upon the Petitioner for not fling proper return read with Section 70 of the Act; and

(vii) Penalty in terms of Section 78 of the Act should not be imposed upon the Petitioner for suppressing/concealing the value of taxable service with the intent of evading payment of service tax.”

4. Vide letter dated 30 December 2009, the Petitioner filed its reply to the said show cause cum demand notice denying the allegations made therein.

5. Thereafter, pending adjudication of the said show cause cum demand notice, the Petitioner, in respect of its offices across India, obtained Centralized Service Tax Registration No.AABCA2731NST001 under the jurisdiction of the Respondent No.2, Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Navi Mumbai, with effect from 9 September 2010.

6. We have heard Mr. Paranjape, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Jetly, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents and with their able assistance we have perused the papers and proceedings in the matter and considered the rival contentions.

7. Mr. Paranjape, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that upon grant of centralized service tax registration, the Divisional Officer was obliged t