- (1.) Since in both the appeals, arising from the common order of the Tribunal, controversy involved is inter-connected, therefore, both the appeals are being decided by this one and common judgment. These two appeals, under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, read with Finance Act, 1994 are arising from the order passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, dated 16-8-2013 (2014 (35) S.T.R. 330 (Tribunal)). Appeal No. 337 of 2013 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "I. Whether after having initiated assessment proceeding twice against the appellant by show cause notice dated 9-10-2002 and notice dated 20-5-2003, the Department was right under the law to issue third show cause notice dated 23-9-2003 (from 1-9-1999 to 31-3-2003) on the same basis, same very issue and same very period and the said show cause notice dated 23-9-2003 and proceedings thereon is legal and valid under the law? II. Whether the adjudicating order dated 14-2-2008 passed in respect of show cause notice dated 23-9-2003, almost after 41/2 years without giving any explanation for such delay for which after first hearing on 12-4-2004, another hearing held after 4 years on 9-10-2007 is sustainable in eyes of law in view of settled position of law? III. Whether the Tribunal was right in passing the impugned order without examine that the validity of show cause notice dated 23-9-2003 without the existence of conditions laid down for issuance of under Section 73(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994? IV. Whether the Tribunal is right to hold that activities of the appellant covered under "consignment agent" under Section 65(72) [now 105)(j)] read with Section 65(16) (now 25) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also the demand of Rs. 21,64,603 in respect of reimbursement for other charges is taxable under the Finance Act, 1994? V. Whether the penalty, under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be imposed when the appellant has paid the admitted amount before the Order-in-Original and further when there is no suppression or concealment of the service tax?
(2.) Central Excise Appeal No. 338 of 2013 has been admitted on following substantial question of law: "I Whether in the facts and circumstances, the impugned Final Order No. ST/A/57309-57310/2013-CU(DB), dated 16-8-2013 whereby allowed the Departmental Appeal No. ST/350/3008 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal is valid under the law? II. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in allowing the Departmental Appeal No. ST/350/2008 on the basis of the provisions of Section 76 substituted by the Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 18-4-2006 whereas dispute is for the period from 1-9-1999 to 31-3-2003?"
(3.) Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeals, are that the appellant is a Company, which is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, entered into an agreement with TISCO on 2-4-1998, which has been renewed from time to time. However, a fresh agreement has been entered into on 21-12-2002. It is informed that the terms and conditions of the earlier agreement were same to the agreement dated 21-12-2002. By the said agreement, the appellant has been appointed as a consignment agent to perform the jobs mentioned therein. According to the appellant, though in the agreement, it is stated that the appellant is being appointed as a Consignment Agent, but having regard to the scope of work mentioned in the agreement, in law, he was not a Consignment Agent, but was only the Handling agent.;