9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 964 - AT - Service TaxNon-payment of service tax - CHA Service - Business Auxiliary Services - reimbursement expenses received - failure to discharge service tax on the incentives / brokerage received by them from steamer agents / shipping lines - demand of differential duty with interest and penalty. Differential service tax demand raised by the Department under CHA Services - HELD THAT - The issue as to whether the reimbursable expenses has to be included in the taxable value is settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. VERSUS M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD. 2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT . Following the same, the said demand cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. Demand under Business Auxiliary Services - It is the case of the Department that the appellant received incentives / brokerage from the steamer agents / shipping lines for promoting and marketing the business of steamer agent and shipping lines - HELD THAT - It is to be noted that the appellant has not been engaged by the steamer agents / shipping lines to provide any service to them. They act as agent for the importer or the exporter. Merely because the steamer agent has paid some incentive to the appellant when they facilitate the export consignment of the importers / exporters it cannot be said that the same would become consideration for providing services. Every flow of money from a person to another cannot be said to be a consideration for providing services. The relationship of service provider and service recipient has to be looked into which is absent in this situation - the demand under Business Auxiliary Services cannot sustain. The impugned order is set aside - The appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the demand under CHA Services for reimbursable expenses and incentives/brokerages received is justified. 2. Whether the differential demand under CHA Services and Business Auxiliary Services is legal and proper. For the first issue concerning CHA Services, the Appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), was found to have not paid service tax on reimbursement expenses and incentives received from steamer agents. The Original Authority confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellant argued that the demand on reimbursable expenses is not liable for service tax as per a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal agreed, citing the decision and set aside the demand. Regarding the demand under Business Auxiliary Services, the Department claimed that the incentives/brokerages received were for promoting the business of steamer agents and shipping lines. The Appellant contended that they were not appointed as commission agents and only received incentives for facilitating export consignments. The Tribunal noted that the relationship between the parties did not establish a service provider and recipient dynamic. Relying on precedent cases, the Tribunal found the demand under Business Auxiliary Services unsustainable. In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs as per the law.
|
