9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is a registered service provider of "Custom House Agent" service. During the audit of accounts, it was noticed that the appellant had not paid Service tax on Container movement charges and Local Transport charges for the period from 18-4-2006 to 31-3-2008. Hence, a Show Cause Notice proposing to demand Rs. 4,45,193/- towards S. Tax, Ed. Cess and SHE Cess under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with applicable rate of interest under Section 75 besides proposal to impose penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was issued to the appellant. After due process of law, the Lower Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the proceedings initiated in the Show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand of Rs. 4,09,144/- under "Custom House Agent" Service and demand of Service tax of Rs. 15,504/- under "Goods transport Agency" service. (iv) that under no circumstances, a demand of Service tax can be raised on the appellant as the appellant are neither the consignor of the goods nor the consignee of the goods. This fact is not in dispute. The consignment note issued by the goods transport agency clearly specifies the names of the consignor and the consignee of the goods. The name of the appellant does not figure anywhere in the consignment note. Hence, the appellant are neither consignor of goods nor the consignee of the goods. As a matter of fact, the Learned Lower Adjudicating Authority admits this factual position. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pure agent does not arise. Rule 5(2) of the said rules has absolutely no application in the facts of the present case. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside forthwith. (viii) that they are a private limited company duly registered with Service Tax Department and are paying Service tax to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- (approx.) annually. Further, the appellant are maintaining regular books of accounts. The appellant have filed statutory ST-3 returns periodically. The appellant were under a bona fide belief that they are not liable to pay Service tax. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invokable as there was no suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of Service tax. Therefore, the entire demand i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her - (i) the demand is time-barred as claimed by the appellant and (ii) the appellant is liable to pay Service tax on container movement charges and local transport charges under CHA services and on freight charges under GTA services during the disputed period. 5. I find from the records that the appellant had been issued with Show Cause Notice for non-payment of Service tax on container movement charges, transportation charges and on freight charges for the period 18-4-2006 to 31-3-2008 invoking proviso to extended period of time. It was noticed from the records that the appellant had filed returns regularly during the disputed period and they were paying tax also regularly for the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong to the exporter or importer as the case may be, by engaging Good Transport Agency Service. The consignment note issued by GTA clearly shows the importer or exporter as the consignor. The consignment note also mentions that the Service tax is to be paid by the consignor or the consignee. Even though the appellant pays freight charges to the GTA, separate invoice is raised on the clients for the transportation. In this invoice, it is clearly mentioned that the Service tax on the transportation is payable by the importer or exporter and the appellant is not liable to pay Service tax thereon. The appellant had submitted copies of consignment note and invoices before this forum. The charges incurred by the appellant is reimbursed by their cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered not related to CHA service - Impugned period from 2000 to 2004 while storage and warehousing made taxable service from 16-8-2002 - Issue attained finality as decided in assessee's favour by Commissioner (Appeals) for previous period and such order not appealed against by Revenue - Service tax paid on CHA activities and other activities not relating to CHA service - Profits from such other activities not taxable - Impugned order set aside - Sections 73 and 76 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 9] Custom House Agent service - Scope of - Activity of CHA relates to entry or departure of conveyances or import or export of goods at any customs station - CHA's activity limited to customs station and not extends beyond - Sections 65(35) and 65(105)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
