9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice for the period prior to February 2007 and post February 2007 the Service Tax liability is confirmed under CHA services. He would take us through the Show Cause Notice, its annexures and also the findings of the adjudicating authority. It is his submission that the appellant has been providing basket of services to their clients, which according to him, will not fall under Business Auxiliary Services. As an example, he submits that the appellant is charging only basic payments made by him for services procured and claiming the same from his client by adding particular percentage as margin. It is his submission that ocean freight is exempted from payment of Service Tax and the authorities having included the same, it seems to be an erron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Order-in-Original. It is his submission that the services provided by the appellant would fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. It is the submission that the appellant is claiming that the amount which has been received or collected by them as reimbursement charges, is not justified and in such kind of cases, this Bench has been taking a view that the assessee should put to condition of pre-deposit of 25% of the amount of Service Tax liability confirmed by the lower authorities. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides on the Stay Petition, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture, as the issue lies in a narrow compass. Accordingly, after allowing the Stay Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver both periods prior to 10.09.2004 and after. It is very obvious that the appellants were not given proper opportunity to explain as to why the service may not fall under Clause (iv) prior to 10.09.2004. The issue why it will not fall under Section 65(19)(iv) as proposed in the Show Cause Notice is not dealt with at all. So this part of demand requires re-adjudication after hearing the submission of the appellant. In the case of consideration received for freight, we are of the prima facie view that ocean freight was not liable to Service Tax. While there are specific entries in Finance Act, 1994 levying tax on transportation of goods by road, rail, aircraft, pipeline etc, there is no entry levying tax on transportation by sea. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the clause invoked will apply. Some of these items like Terminal Handling Charges, EDI charges, screening charges etc appear to be expenses incurred by the appellant on behalf of the clients which expenses are reimbursed by the clients. The question whether the amounts charges were actual needs to be examined. The question whether these will form a part of the value of services rendered by appellants, also need to be examined. In the case of services of Goods Transport Agency, there is a difference between proposal in Show Cause Notice and finding in the adjudication order. In the case of demand of Rs.10,49,152/-, there is no clear finding regarding the nature of activity and whether the services could be considered to be exported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
