9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant are engaged in rendering Courier Service and registered with the Central Excise Department. Based on the intelligences that the appellant are collecting service tax from their clients and the same is not remitted fully to the Government account, the officers attached to SIV Cell, Service Tax Commissionerate conducted verification at the appellant's premises. The statement was recorded from Shri M. Yusuf, Proprietor of the appellant's unit on 2-8-2005. The Show Cause Notice C. No. IV/9/12/2005-STC (Adj) dated 21-10-2005 was issued. After due processing of law the lower adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 15,19,139/- and Education Cess of Rs. 7,555/-, along with appropriate interest un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice to a customer directly on most of the occasions. Mostly the appellants acted as co-loaders for other courier agencies and received payment from them. Therefore the question of payment of service tax as alleged in the impugned order does not arise. In this regard the appellants relied on the clarification issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs, vide Circular F. No. 341 /43/96-TRU, dated 31-10-1996 which is binding on the Department. 6. The averment in the impugned order with regard to bank statements is not sustainable in law. It is the duty of the Department to prove that the entire bank transactions are relatable to taxable value collected by the appellants from the customers for performing alleged service. The appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide which they submitted, the worksheet showing total amount received from co-couriers and direct customers during the years 2000-01 to 2004-05 and various other documents. None appeared for the department. 9. I have carefully gone through the case records and submission writ ten as well as oral. 10. The appellant have mainly contended that their operation are mostly on co-courier, co-loader bases except very few transaction of direct services. As regard co-loader service, Board vide Circular F. No. 341/43/96/TRU, dated 31-10-1996 has clarified that:. "It has been pointed out that in some cases one courier agency, who undertakes to deliver the documents, goods, or articles received from customers, utilises the services of another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xy Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai -II - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 102 (Tri. - Del.) held that Circular issued by Board and Trade Notice issued in pursuant thereto are binding on the Revenue. In Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) held that even if it be contended that a circular is not issued under Section 37B, circulars issued have to be treated as if issued under the said Section and the Department will be estopped from arguing that the circular is not valid. The Supreme Court also held that such circulars are not advisory in character but binding on Central Excise Officers. 12. The lower adjudicating authority in para 14.2 of the impugned order in original found that "the statement showing figures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
