9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der "Business Auxiliary Service" - the order goes beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notices - during the relevant period, there was no entry in the Finance Act, 1994 for taxing transportation by sea - Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, which was initially proposed in the Show Cause Notices have been struck down. Whether the present case was on the same footing as that of M/s. Leaap International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2013 (5) TMI 112 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - It was argued that the appellant was issuing the Bill of Lading as a multimodal transport operator and such aspect was not considered in the case of M/s Leaap International - When Bill of Lading was issued and the applicant was actin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v) Loading and Unloading Charges (vi) Measurement Charges (vii) Striping Charges (viii) Palatization Charges (ix) Customs Clearance Charges (x) Wharfage Charges (xi) Cargo Shifting Charges (xii) Survey Charges (xiii) Stuffing Charges (xiv) Handling Charges (xv) CMC-EDI Charges (xvi) Fumigation Charges (xvii) AAI Charges (xviii) Insurance charges (xix) Demurrage Charges (xx) Fort Lift Charges and (xxi) Bond Charges. On the items listed from (i) to (xiv), the applicant paid service tax under the head of "Business Support Service" and in the case of items from (xv) to (xxi), they were not paying any service tax on the ground that these were actual charges paid to other agencies and the applicant claimed that such charges would not form part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed in the Show Cause Notices have been struck down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India ANR reported in. Therefore, any such demand on ocean freight is not maintainable. Once demand in respect of ocean freight goes there is hardly any demand left out of the confirmed demand. 3. Opposing the prayer, the learned authorized representative for the Revenue submits that in the case of ocean freight there is a difference between the amount charged by the applicant to the customer and the amount paid to the shipping lines, which difference is actually the cost for procuring the services of the shipping lines for the benefit of the importer or the exporter and, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. (supra). It is argued that the appellant was issuing the Bill of Lading as a multimodal transport operator and such aspect is not considered in the case of M/s Leaap International. When Bill of Lading is issued and the applicant is acting in a joint activity, they are entitled to their profit and such an activity cannot be considered as procurement of service for exporter/importer, as alleged by Revenue. It is a case of rendering of service in their own capacity. But, what we find is that such submissions is not clearly coming in the reply to the Show Cause Notice and in the Order-in-Original and these facts needs to be decided at the time of hearing of the appeal. Therefore, at this prima facie stage, we consider it proper to order f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
