ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, C.J. - These two appeals have been fifed u/s 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter called as "the Act, 1944") by the same appellant in relation to different periods of assessment of Service Tax urging common facts and legal grounds, which are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The aforesaid appeals are filed framing as many as seven substantial questions of law, but according to us the following substantial questions of law which are relevant to be considered by this Court are as follows : (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the activities of the Appellant can be termed as "Cargo Handling Agent" within the meaning of Section 65(23) read with Section 65(105)(zr); (2) Whether in terms of Section 65A(2)(a) the activities of the Appellant is more appropriately not covered under "Supply of Tangible Goods Services" u/s 65(105)(zzzzj); (3)...............................................................................; (4) Whether in view of Notification No. 30/2005-S.T., dated 10-8-2005 issued u/s 83A of the Act and Circular No. 80/1/2005-S.T., dated 10-8-2005 the adjudication order dated 31-8-2005 confirming service tax demand of Rs. 17,50,030/- for the period 16-8-2002 to 30-6-2004 is not without jurisdiction; (5)...............................................................................; (6) Whether in absence of positive act or deliberate defiance of law the extended period of limitation can be invoked under proviso to Sec. 73(1) for mere inactions, failure or negligence by the assessee; 3. In both the appeals, the appellant has challenged the legality of Order No. A-1087-1093/KOL/2008, dated 26-6-2008 (2009) 16 STJ 398 passed by the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata (for short, "the CESTAT") on the ground that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the materials on record urging various facts and legal contentions. 4. The brief facts of the case are stated thus to consider the grounds urged in these appeal on behalf of the appellant to find out as to whether the aforesaid questions of law framed by the appellant would arise for consideration and answer the same in its favour. 5. It is stated that learned CESTAT by a common order against three appeals filed by the appellant upheld the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 17,50,030/- and Rs. 5. It is stated that learned CESTAT by a common order against three appeals filed by the appellant upheld the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 17,50,030/- and Rs. 1,53,990/- u/s 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period from 16-8-2002 to 30-6-2004 and from 1-7-2004 to 31-3-2005 respectively along with interest u/s 75 mainly on the ground that under contracts for "Hiring of Pay Loaders for transfer of Coal into Railway Wagons" entered between the appellant and M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Burla, Samballpur (for short, "the MCL"). The primary object of the parties were not to supply or let out Pay Loaders on hire basis taxable under the category of "Supply of Tangible Goods" defined u/s 65(105)(zzzzj) w.e.f. 16-5-2008 of the Act but were related to handling of Coal as "Cargo" taxable w.e.f. 16-8-2002 under the category of "Cargo Handling Services" defined u/s 65(23) read with Section 65(105)(zr). It is also observed that supply of Pay Loaders by the appellant were merely an aid to perform the service of loading of Coal (Cargo) into the Railway Wagon and not a case of letting out of Pay Loaders on hire basis as obligation of the appellant did not end simply with the letting out of the Pay Loaders on hire but the appellant was required to carry out loading of required quantity within the given time frame and charges were payable on the basis of coal loaded into the Railway Wagons. The CESTAT set aside the penalties under Sections 75A, 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 finding no willful suppression of facts on the part of the appellant and the appellant had no intention to cause evasion of revenue and the conditions of the statute were not complied due to confusion as to taxability during the stage of implementation of the Act. 6. The case of the appellant pleaded before the First Appellate Authority, in brief, is that it is a partnership concern engaged in letting out Pay Loaders on hire basis for mechanical transfer of coal into Railway Wagons at different Railway sidings of MCL. Other contractors of MCL transport coal from different parts of the mines and dump at the Railway sidings. The Pay Loaders hired out by the appellant are used for loading of coal from Railway sidings dumps into the Railway Wagons. Other contractors of MCL transport coal from different parts of the mines and dump at the Railway sidings. The Pay Loaders hired out by the appellant are used for loading of coal from Railway sidings dumps into the Railway Wagons. After loading, the Railway Wagons are dispatched by MCL to their respective customers. The Pay Loaders are owned by the appellant and are supplied to MCL along with operators. The appellant itself undertakes operation, maintenance and upkeep of the Pay Loaders. The control and possession of the Pay Loaders always remains with the appellant throughout the execution of the contract. 7. It is stated that the appellant was awarded contract vide Work Order No. MCL/CG/L/LKPA/SO(M)/Pay Loaders/2-3/17, dated 14/17-12-2002 by MCL for "Hiring of Pay Loader for Mechanical transfer of Coal Wagon at MGR Siding No. 5 Lakhanpur Area" for transfer of 56 lacs tonnes of coal over a period of two years for a contract value of Rs. 142.24 lacs payable @ Rs. 2.54 per tonne of coal transferred/loaded. Under the contract the appellant had to transfer/load 1800.000 MT. of coal per hour. 8. It is stated that the appellant was awarded another similar contract vide Work Order No. MCL/GM/IBV/SO(M)/LOCP/WL/91, dated 29-4-2003 by MCL for "Hiring of Pay Loader for Mechanical transfer of 9.50 lacs tonnes of coal lb Valley Area" over a period of two years for a contract value of Rs. 44,93,500/- payable @ Rs. 4.73 per metric tonne of coal transferred/loaded. Under the contract the appellant had to transfer 1700.000 MT. of coal per hour. 9. It is stated that like the aforesaid contract, another contract was awarded to the appellant vide Work Order No. MCL/CGM/LKPA/SO(M)/Pay Loader/03.04.0020, dated 6/11-2-2004 by MCL for "Hiring of Pay Loader for Mechanical transfer of coal from Railway siding/platform into Rly. Wagons at "Y" Curve BOCM Siding at Chingriguda of Lakahnpur Area" over a period of two years for a contract value of Rs. 92.99 lacs payable @ Rs. 2.79 per metric tonne of coal transferred/loaded. Under the contract the appellant had to transfer 900.000 MT. of coal per hour. Copies of the Work order dated 14/17-12-2002, Work Order dated 29-4-2003 and Work Order dated 06/11-2-2004, which are annexed to and part of the show cause notice dated 21-2-2005 are produced. 10. It is stated that the Sr. 2.79 per metric tonne of coal transferred/loaded. Under the contract the appellant had to transfer 900.000 MT. of coal per hour. Copies of the Work order dated 14/17-12-2002, Work Order dated 29-4-2003 and Work Order dated 06/11-2-2004, which are annexed to and part of the show cause notice dated 21-2-2005 are produced. 10. It is stated that the Sr. Intelligence Officer, Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Regional Unit, Rourkela (For the short, "the DGCEI") vide letter No. 06/INV/St/2004, dated 23-7-2004 requested the appellant to compute their Service Tax liability on the value of above services received from MCL during 16-8-2002 to 30-6-2004 and deposit the same into the Government exchequer as their services fall under Cargo Handling Services defined u/s 65(23) of the Act. Thereafter, a Summon bearing No. DGCEI F.N. 6/INV/ST/04/766, dated 2-8-2004 was issued by the Sr. Intelligence Officer u/s 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to the Act by Section 83 requiring them to produce copies of bills raised against MCL during 16-8-2002 to 30-6-2004 and to produce copies of TR-6 challans evidencing payments of Service Tax thereon. The appellant vide reply dated 9-8-2004 contended that the activities with MCL were for hiring of Pay Loaders and not Cargo Handling Services. Thereupors, another summons dated 9-8-2004 was issued requiring the appellant to produce copies of bills raised, copies of TR-6 challans and to make deposition. 11. It is stated that the appellant being aggrieved by the said let-ters/sommons filed a writ petition in W.P. (C) No. 9418 of 2004 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before this Court challenging the legality of the said letters/summons. This Court vide order dated 11-10-2004 quashed the notice dated 23-7-2004 and directed the appellant to cause appearance before the Sr. Intelligence Officer as per sumnnons dated 2-8-2004/9-8-2004 and make deposition/file show cause as to why the work undertaken by them does not amount to Cargo Handling Services and why the appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax on the said work. Accordingly, the appellant appeared before the Sr. Intelligence-Officer, DGCEI on 23-11-2004 and made deposition, furnished details of amounts received from MCL. In its statement dated 23-11-2004 the appellant stated that they supply Pay Loaders to MCL on hire basis, which is used for loading of coal into Railway Wagon from Railway Siding. Accordingly, the appellant appeared before the Sr. Intelligence-Officer, DGCEI on 23-11-2004 and made deposition, furnished details of amounts received from MCL. In its statement dated 23-11-2004 the appellant stated that they supply Pay Loaders to MCL on hire basis, which is used for loading of coal into Railway Wagon from Railway Siding. It was further stated that the operation, maintenance and upkeep of the Pay Loaders are done by the appellant. The appellant, categorically denied that the services provided by them are taxable under Cargo Handling Services in any manner. 12. It is stated that the Deputy Director, DGCEI considering the nature of activities undertaken by the appellant issued show cause notice dated 21-2-2005 u/s 73(1) of the Act requiring the appellant to show cause as to why Service Tax amounting to Rs. 17,50,030/- should not be recovered from them along with interest u/s 75 in the category of "Cargo Handling Services" defined u/s 65(23) on Rs. 2,39,57,313.54 received from MCL during 16-8-2002 to 30-6-2004 as the contract for "Hiring of Pay Loaders for Mechanical transfer of coal into Railway Wagons" is taxable under the category of Cargo Handling Services defined u/s 65(23) of the Act. The appellant was also required to show cause why penalties under Sections 75A, 76 and Section 77 of the Act should not be levied upon them for their failure to obtain registration, pay tax and furnish returns respectively. The appellant was directed to show cause before the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Sambalpur-I Division, Sambalpur. 13. It is stated that another show cause notice dated 31-5-2005 was issued by the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Sambalpur-I Division, Sambalpur for the subsequent period from 1-7-2004 to 31-3-2005 requiring the appellant to show cause why service tax amounting to Rs. 1,53,990/- should not be recovered from them u/s 73 read with Section 68 of the Act on Rs. 16,08,801/- received from MCL towards Pay Loader hire charges under the category of Cargo Handling Services along with interest u/s 75 and why penalties under Sections 75A, 76 and 77 of the Act should not be levied upon them for failure to pay service tax u/s 68 and failure to file return u/s 70. 16,08,801/- received from MCL towards Pay Loader hire charges under the category of Cargo Handling Services along with interest u/s 75 and why penalties under Sections 75A, 76 and 77 of the Act should not be levied upon them for failure to pay service tax u/s 68 and failure to file return u/s 70. It was further alleged that there is ground to believe that by reason of failure on the part of the appellant to disclose wholly or truly all material facts required for verification of the assessment u/s 71, the value of taxable services has escaped assessment and service tax as aforesaid has not been paid. The appellant in reply to the said show cause vide its letter dated 4-3-2005 contended inter alia that it has not undertaken Cargo Handling Service and, therefore, the same does not come within the purview of Section 65(23) of the Act. It is further stated that the appellant is not acting as a Cargo Handling Agent within the definition of Section 65(105)(zr) as its obligation under the contract is limited to supply of Pay Loaders for loading of coal into Railway wagons. It is further stated that they do not undertake any other activities like receiving, unloading, packing, unpacking, loading and releasing the cargo where the cargo remains in the control and possession of cargo handling agents like container, freight terminals, etc. Under the contract the coal remains under the control, possession and security of MCL, the time and manner of loading are decided by MCL. The MCL instructs the Pay Loader operator what to load and where to load. The appellant only provides the Pay Loader at the time and place instructed by MCL against hire charges measured in terms of coal loaded into the Railway Wagons. The appellant has also stated that since Section 65(23) read with Section 65(105)(zr) of the Act is not attracted, there is no liability to pay the service tax for the period in question it requested to drop the proceeding. 14. Without considering the aforesaid reply of the appellant the Assessing Officer has rejected the contention of the appellant and determined the tax liability holding the services rendered to the appellant with MCL from the 16-8-2002 to 30-6-2004 and from 1-7-2004 to 31-3-2005 along with interest and penalty. 15. 14. Without considering the aforesaid reply of the appellant the Assessing Officer has rejected the contention of the appellant and determined the tax liability holding the services rendered to the appellant with MCL from the 16-8-2002 to 30-6-2004 and from 1-7-2004 to 31-3-2005 along with interest and penalty. 15. Aggrieved of the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority reiterating the stand taken before the assessing officer that the assessment made before payment of Service Tax and the penalty under the provisions of the Act are not only erroneous but also vitiated in law. The First Appellate Authority rejected such contention of the appellant holding that the provisions of the Act are attracted to the appellant. 16. Being further aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT without exercising its appellate jurisdiction and power has concurred with the finding of facts accepted the determination of Service Tax liability payable u/s 65 of the Act by recording reasons in answer to the point that arose for its consideration and it has exercised its power. The correctness of the said order is questioned in these appeals by framing the aforesaid substantial questions of law and requesting this Court to answer the questions referred to above in favour of the appellant and to set aside the impugned orders by allowing these appeals. 17. The grounds of attack in support of contentions that the CESTAT failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 65(23) read with Section 55(105)(zr) is limited to handling of "Cargo" only and not handling of "Goods" and it failed to appreciate that under the Act only handling of Cargo is taxable and not mere handling of goods. Further, the CESTAT failed to take into consideration the relevant fact though it was pointed that the term "Cargo" is not defined under the Act and as per dictionary meanings only "goods" which are being "carried", "conveyed" or "transported" by any means of transportation and have become load of the ship/truck/wagon, etc. Further, the CESTAT failed to take into consideration the relevant fact though it was pointed that the term "Cargo" is not defined under the Act and as per dictionary meanings only "goods" which are being "carried", "conveyed" or "transported" by any means of transportation and have become load of the ship/truck/wagon, etc. "cargo" while in the instant case the coal loaded into the Railway Wagons were part and partial of the MCL stock of coal lying in the Railway siding inside the mines which had not yet started their journey, hence, handling thereof, if any, cannot be termed as cargo handling activity and but mere material handling activity which is not taxable under the Act. Further, in trade parlance the term "Cargo" has a definite connotation and mere handling of goods cannot be termed as cargo handling activity but material handling activity. As per various dictionaries, "Cargo" means as follows : i. Freight or loading of a ship, shipload - Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. ii. The load or freight of a ship, air plane or vehicle, load - New Webster's Dictionary. iii. Cargo or a ship or plane, the goods that it is carrying - Collins English Dictionary. iv. Goods carried by a ship or aeroplane, any load to be carried - Chambers English Dictionary. v. The goods transported by a vessel, air plane or vehicle; freight -Black's Law Dictionary. vi. Ships" Load - Webster's New Dictionary & Thesaurus. vii. Cargo is the goods or merchandise conveyed in a ship, aeroplane or vehicle - Mitra's Legal & Commercial Dictionary Edition. 18. As per the aforesaid dictionary meanings, goods become "Cargo" only after loading into the Railway Wagon/truck/tippers and not before. As per the dictionary meanings, the use of the expression "load", "ship's load", "carried", "Carrying", "transported" clearly shows that it is in past tense or present perfect tense which dearly indicates that goods becomes "Cargo" only after it is loaded or transported. Before that it remains "Goods". 19. It is further contended that the Legislature in the Act has drawn clear distinction between the terms "Goods" and "Cargo". The intention of the Legislature can be gathered from definition of different services under the Act itself. Before that it remains "Goods". 19. It is further contended that the Legislature in the Act has drawn clear distinction between the terms "Goods" and "Cargo". The intention of the Legislature can be gathered from definition of different services under the Act itself. Wherever Legislature intended to tax services relating to "Goods" it has unequivocally stated so and wherever Legislature intended to tax services relating to "Cargoes", it has used the term "Cargo" to limit the scope of levy. For instance, under "Transport of goods by road services" as defined u/s 65(50b), the expression "Goods" is used while under 'Cargo Handling Services' defined u/s 65(23), the expression "Cargo" is used which clearly indicates that legislature while bringing the services under the tax net has clearly laid down its scope by deliberately using the expression "Cargo" and to define the scope of the levy. Undoubtedly, the use of the expression "Cargo" by the Legislature is a deliberate act with a Intention to restrict the scope of the levy only to "Cargo" Handling Services" rendered only by Cargo Handling Agents and not to extend it to goods/materials handling activities. The intention of the Legislature can also be gathered from the new definition of Cargo Handling Services u/s 65(23) substituted by Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 16-5-2008. The intention of the Legislature can also be gathered from the new definition of Cargo Handling Services u/s 65(23) substituted by Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 16-5-2008. The old and new definitions of Cargo Handling Services are set out below : Old Definition Section 65(23) Cargo handling services means loading, unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo and include cargo handling services provided for freight in special containers or for non-containerized freight, services provided by a container freight terminal or any other freight terminal, for all modes of transport and cargo handling service incidental to freight, but does not include handling of export cargo or passenger baggage or mere transportation of goods (emphasis added) New definition Section 65(23) Cargo handling service means loading, " unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo and includes - (a) cargo handling services provided for freight in special containers or for non-containerized freight, services provided by a container freight terminal or any other freight terminal, for all modes of transport, and cargo handling services incidental to freight : and handling service incidental to freight: and (b) service of packing together with transportation of cargo or goods, with or without one or more of other services like loading, unloading, unpacking, but does not include, handling of export cargo or passenger baggage or mere transportation of goods; (emphasis added) 20. The new definition is very clear which came into force with effect from 15-5-2008. Therefore, the earlier definition of Cargo Handling Services as defined has no application to the instant case. 21. This legal contention has been repudiated by the learned counsel appearing for the Central Excise Department placing strong reliance upon the finding of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer, which has been affirmed by the first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority, that the same is proper appreciation of fact and material evidence on record. 22. The Assessing Officer has referred to Section 65(23) of the Finance Act and recorded his findings holding that three things are analyzed i.e. (1) What are the criteria of the services to be included in the "Cargo Handling Services". (2) The nature of job entrusted to the notice in the contract agreement/Work Order and (3) The submissions made by the notice in reply to show cause notice and answered with reference to the meaning of "Cargo" viz. (2) The nature of job entrusted to the notice in the contract agreement/Work Order and (3) The submissions made by the notice in reply to show cause notice and answered with reference to the meaning of "Cargo" viz. the term cargo means "the load" (i.e. freight) of a vessel, train, truck, aeroplane or other carrier (Black's Law Dictionary). Thus the goods, which are meant for transportation from one place to another by any mode of transport, are known as cargo. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has held the goods which were meant for transpiration from one place to another by any mode of transport is known as cargo. The meaning of "loading" - the term loading in the present context means the act of putting a load on or in as to load a car or a vessel. The act of loading invariably takes place at the starting place of the journey of the cargo. The meaning of "Unloading" - The term "unloading" means the act of discharging a cargo taking load from, disburdening or removing from. Thus while the act of loading refers to putting the cargo into the mode of transport at the starting point, the act of unloading refers to the removing of the cargo from the mode of transport at the destination point. It appears cargo handling is an adjunct service to the actual transportation of goods. The pre-transportation activities like packing/loading and post-transportation activities like unloading/unpacking have been brought under the service tax in the "Cargo Handling Service" category, which are provided by the Cargo Handling Agency. The clarification issued by the C.B.E.C. Circular F.No. B/1/2002-TRU, dated 1-8-02, vide Sl. No. 3 stipulates the services which are liable to tax under this category are the services provided by cargo handling of goods meant to be transported by any means of transportation namely truck, rail, ship or aircraft. Mere transportation of goods is not covered in the category of cargo handling service. The relevant portions of the terms and conditions of work Order No. MCL/IBV/CGM/LOCP/03-04/91, dated 29-4-2003 are extracted hereunder : 1. The notice has to be in readiness for starting loading work as specified in the tender as soon as the wagons are supplied. It will not be the management's responsibility to inform the contractor after wagons are placed. They will have to make their own arrangement for keeping in information etc. 2. The notice has to be in readiness for starting loading work as specified in the tender as soon as the wagons are supplied. It will not be the management's responsibility to inform the contractor after wagons are placed. They will have to make their own arrangement for keeping in information etc. 2. The rate offered and as agreed by the notice in writing and accepted is inclusive of all expenditure relating to labour wages, transferring machine, fuel charges, wears & tears, supervision, profit and all incidental thereon including taxes and other contingencies complete for which no additional payment shall be made. But the rate is subject to variation in accordance with the rise and fall of price of diesel oil as per escalation clauses keeping the base price of diesel as on the date of receipt of the tender i.e. Rs. 20.38/liter as per provision in the tender document. The amount of security deposit will also be increased in case the price of diesel oil is further escalated by the Union Government within the contract period. 3. The departmental official will make periodical surprise checking and verification of quality and quantity of coal being loaded by the notice. The notice should have to maintain complete record of coal loading made by the notice separately and such records should be produced whenever required by the authorized representative of the department. 4. While loading the notice will ensure that the railway track in the siding is not blocked/no coal is spilled on the track/drain. It is the responsibility of the notice to see that the railway track/drain in the siding is kept properly clean as per prevalent Railway Rules after loading of wagons are completed. If the management has to incur any demurrage due to above reasons the same shall be recovered from the bill. Expenditure, if any incurred for cleaning by the management shall be on notice's account. 5. Loading of rake of 58-N Box to the specific height as required will have to be completed as stipulated in the tender document i.e. within 2.00 hrs. in the siding No. III from the time of placement of the empty rake by railways including wagon cleaning, door closing, leaving of coal and lime washing. An additional time not exceeding 45 minutes for completing the rake will be allowed. in the siding No. III from the time of placement of the empty rake by railways including wagon cleaning, door closing, leaving of coal and lime washing. An additional time not exceeding 45 minutes for completing the rake will be allowed. In case of failure to load the 58-N Box in the above allotted time period, the notice shall be liable for penalty amounting to the demurrage charges by the railways, if any. In case of reasons of delay in loading are on account of the management's failure to provide sufficient coal etc. management may review the penalty. 6. (A) In case of weighment of coal is done on the spot by weigh bridge the responsibility for improper transfer will be of the contactor and penalty for under loading and over loading of wagons, if any, shall be recovered from the running bills of the contractors. (B) In case weighment is calculated on volumetric basis, the contractor's responsibility shall be- (i) To load the wagon to a predetermined height fixed by the management of MCL for each rake/wagon as the case may be and level the same to indicated height of loading. (ii) To make necessary adjustments of the loaded wagons so as to bring it predetermined loading height correctly. (iii) To make necessary adjustments of the loaded wagons if railways return the rake even after action taken as indicated in (i) and (ii) above. (iv) If the contractor fails to observe one or all clauses above and does any under loading/over loading will be fully on the account of the contractor. 23. On the basis of the said terms and conditions of the contract between the parties it has come to the conclusion by the Assessing Officer and held that activity undertaken by the appellant squarely falls within the "cargo handling service" and service tax is payable on the gross amount received by the notice. Further, it is held that it has violated the provisions of Sections 68, 69 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended. Further, the Finance Act, 2002 brought Cargo Handling Services under the Service Tax net with effect from 16-8-2002 vide Notification No. 8/2002-S.T., dated 1-8-2002. The services shall be taxed if provided by a Cargo Handling Agency. Further, it is held that it has violated the provisions of Sections 68, 69 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended. Further, the Finance Act, 2002 brought Cargo Handling Services under the Service Tax net with effect from 16-8-2002 vide Notification No. 8/2002-S.T., dated 1-8-2002. The services shall be taxed if provided by a Cargo Handling Agency. Section 65(105) read with Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended provides for the levy of Service Tax on Cargo Handling Services with effect from 16-8-2002. Therefore, it is held that every such service provider is to get itself registered and follow the procedure including payment of service tax provided in the Service Tax Laws. Therefore, it is further held that the appellant received the amount for the cargo handling service rendered by them to M/s. MCL to the proper officer of Central Excise by not obtaining the registration, not paying service tax and not submitting any return with the intent to evade payment of service tax. The appellant failed to disclose wholly or truly all the material facts required for verification thereby the values of taxable service has escaped and service tax was not paid. Therefore, Assessing Officer held that the extended period in terms of Section 73(1)(a) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 is rightly invoked against the appellant and determined the tax recoverable u/s 68 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest u/s 75 of the Act also imposed penalty of Rs. 500/-under Section 75A of the Act. 24. The aforesaid findings of the First Appellate Authority exercising appellate jurisdiction and power by recording his reasons were examined by the CESTAT in the Second Appeal. The CESTAT in its concurrent finding of fact with reference to the grounds urged and considering the relevant law placed by the parties held that the order Impugned in the appeal does not call for any interference. However, penalty is set aside holding that there is no intention on the part of the appellant to suppress the payment of service tax to the Revenue. Therefore, that portion of the order is set aside. After carefully examining the correctness of the findings we are of the view that the grounds urged in respect of the first question is not tenable in law and the same is liable to be rejected. 25. Therefore, that portion of the order is set aside. After carefully examining the correctness of the findings we are of the view that the grounds urged in respect of the first question is not tenable in law and the same is liable to be rejected. 25. Insofar as Question No. 4 is concerned, Circular No. 80/1/2005, dated 10-8-05 issued u/s 83A of the Act the Asst. Commissioner has no competence to adjudicate the case. The adjudication order is dated 31-8-2005 confirming the Service Tax demanded/determined and levied is without jurisdiction as the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise has no competence after the notification is issued as the said contention urged on behalf of the appellant is wholly untenable in law for the reason that the notices were issued much prior to 10-8-2005 and the proceedings continued by him as he had the jurisdiction and power prior to issuance of the notification referred to supra. However, it is open for the appellant to turn down the same that the Assistant Commissioner who has determined the service tax in relation to both the appeals, the same cannot be said to be without jurisdiction for the reason that issuance of the show cause notice dated 31-5-2005 to the appellant; the appellant participated in the proceedings. The determination of service tax is quasi judicial power of the Asst. Commissioner of Excise and he has issued the show cause notice and proceeded with. After issuance of the notice to the appellant prior to issuance of the notification referred to supra, the officer of the above rank had no jurisdiction to decide the liability of the assessee in the absence of such mentioning in the notification. The proceedings were concluded by the assessing officer who had the jurisdiction in view of the power vested in him prior to the notification was issued. Therefore, he had the competency to proceed with the proceedings. This legal position is very dear in the decision of the Supreme Court in Garikapatti Veeraya Vs. N. Subbiah Choudhury, . 26. Insofar as last question is concerned, which is barred by limitation, the show cause notice is within the period of limitation as provided under clause (e) to Section 73(1) proviso of Chapter V of the Finance Act, wherein "one year" period is substituted by "five years" by amendment to the said provision. N. Subbiah Choudhury, . 26. Insofar as last question is concerned, which is barred by limitation, the show cause notice is within the period of limitation as provided under clause (e) to Section 73(1) proviso of Chapter V of the Finance Act, wherein "one year" period is substituted by "five years" by amendment to the said provision. For the aforesaid reason, the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that initiation of the proceedings by issuing show cause notice for levy of Service Tax is barred by time is untenable and said contention is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, rejected. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, we are in respectful agreement with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Authority as well as the CESTAT on the contentious issues that arose for their consideration. Therefore, none of the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant, which are extracted above, would not arise for our consideration and the same are answered against the appellant. For the foregoing reasons, the other substantial questions of law do not arise for our consideration. 28. Consequently, both the appeals fail and dismissed as such. Final Result : Dismissed