SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 591

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Maheshwari Handling Agency Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
CGST & Central Excise Ahmedabad South – Respondent
ST/12049/2013



Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad REGIONAL BENCH- COURT NO. 1 Service Tax Appeal No. 12049 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. AHM-STX-003-COMMR-020-13 dated 30.03.2013 passed by Commissioner – Service Tax Ahmedabad)

Maheshwari Handling Agency Pvt Ltd. ...Appellant

640/12-C, Lalashah Circle, Gandhidham (Kutch) Gujarat VERSUS CGST & Central Excise Ahmedabad South ...Respondent Office of the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Ahmedabad South, 7th Floor, GST Bhawan, Near Polytechnic Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-Gujarat-380015 APPEARANCE:

Shri Vikas Mehta, Consultant appeared for the Appellant Shri Rajesh Nathan, Authorised Representative appeared for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SOMESH ARORA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MR. SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 10208/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 07.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION:20.03.2026 SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH:

M/s Maheshwari Handling Agency Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham (Appellant)

are engaged in services viz., Stevedoring, Cargo Handling, Supply of Barges and equipments, Steamer Agency Services etc. at Kandla port. Based on an input from Central Excise officers of Jaipur that the appellant was stevedoring and handling shipment of imported coal of M/s Binani Cement, Service Tax Division, Rajkot initiated investigation in the matter by recording the statements of Shri Chhaganlal Pitambardas Maheshwari, Managing Director of the appellant firm on 16.02.2004. They also recorded the statements of Shri Jayraj Harilal Purohit, (Power of Attorney Holder of M/s J.M.Baxi & Company), statements of Shri Mohanbhai Kalyanjibhai Bhanushali, (Supervisor of M/s Nav Bharat Exports, Delhi), Statements of Shri Nayan Jaysukhlal Shah, (Deputy General Manager of M/s Ashapura International Limited, Madhapar(Kutch)), statements of Shri K.R. Pradeep, (M/s Mincore Resources Private Limited, Chennai), statements of Shri Bipin Dashrathlal Parikh, (M/s Adani Ports Limited, Mundra), statements of Shri J.K.Jain, (Assistant Vice President of M/s Associated Transport Firm, Indore) statements of Shri Rajan Jacob M., (Power Attorney Holder of M/s ACT Shipping Ltd.), Statements of Shri Naresh Bavnani, (Authorized Signatory of M/s D.B.C. Sons Pvt. Ltd., Kandla (Kutch)) and various other concerned persons involved in the matter. After conducting investigation, show cause notice dated 11.07.2006 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs. 2,62,00,255/- for the period from 16.07.2001 to 16.02.2004 under Section 73 along with interest under Section 75 and penalty under section 75A, 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Notice was also issued to Shri Chhaganlal P. Maheshwari, Managing Director for imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

1.1 The matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide impugned order dated 01.04.2013 wherein entire demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest besides penalty under Section 76 @Rs.200 per day or @2% of such tax per month whichever is higher, penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 and a penalty equal to Service Tax amount evaded, under Section 78 of the said Act. Instead of imposing penalty on Shri Chhaganlal P. Maheshwari, Managing Director of the appellant firm, Learned Commissioner proposed initiation of proceedings to punish Shri Maheshwari, under erstwhile Section 81 of the Finance Act, 1994 for his acts of omission and commission, as discussed in the order.” Aggrieved with the above order, the appellant filed appeal before this Tribunal.

2. The appellant took the following grounds for setting aside the demand:

• The impugned order is non-speaking as the same has been passed without hearing the appellant and thus, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and without considering their submissions as well as case laws.

• Prior to 01.07.2010, “port service” was defined as any service rendered by a port or other port or any person authorized by such port or other port, in any mann

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top