2016 (12) TMI 1392 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - It is the contention of the applicant that they have not been paying service tax on the commission/brokerage received from shipping lines and that the non-payment thereof is the subject matter of continuing dispute with Revenue. The applicant, therefore, seeks corrigendum to reflect the factual position - Held that - the adjudication order leading to the appeal is restricted to the ocean freight surplus - the appellant has admitted to receiving commission from shipping lines on account of freight and that the service tax authorities have been issuing demands for discharge of tax liability on those receipts which is stated to be separate dispute. However, we find no justification for fastening the same liability on all other receipts of the appellant - ROM disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake apparent on the face of the record in a previous order regarding service tax liability on commission/brokerage received from shipping lines.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue at hand pertains to an application for the rectification of a mistake apparent on the face of the record in a previous order concerning service tax liability. The applicant, M/s Greenwich Meridian Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd, sought rectification with reference to a specific paragraph in the previous order. The contention raised was that they have not been paying service tax on the commission/brokerage received from shipping lines, which is a subject of continuing dispute with the Revenue. The Authorized Representative argued that the amount in dispute before the Tribunal includes the commission/brokerage, and rectification might alter the appeal's outcome. However, the Tribunal clarified that the amount in dispute specifically pertains to 'ocean freight surplus' and not the commission/brokerage earned in the normal course of operations. The Tribunal highlighted that the adjudication order leading to the appeal is limited to the 'ocean freight surplus,' and the conclusion was based on specific discussions and findings in the said order.

Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the appellant admitted to receiving commission from shipping lines on account of freight but had not been discharging tax liability on those receipts, leading to separate demands from the service tax authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no justification for imposing the same liability on all other receipts of the appellant. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had discharged duty liability concerning specific activities and that other activities, even if profitable, cannot be subjected to service tax based on relevant legal decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the rectification of mistake applications, affirming the position regarding the tax liability on commission/brokerage from shipping lines and the limited scope of the appeal concerning 'ocean freight surplus.'