2007 (11) TMI 641

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mounting to ₹ 2,56,63,251/- along with Education Cess for an amount of ₹ 1,68,246/-. Penalty of ₹ 2,58,31,497/- has been imposed under Section 78; ₹ 100/- per day under Section 76 and ₹ 1000/- under Section 77. 3. Shri M. Balagopal, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 4. We heard both sides. The learned Advocate informed the Bench that the appellants are actually Custom House Agent and they have been registered with the Department w.e.f. 15-6-1997 and they have been regularly paying the Service Tax on the Agency Commission received by them. They have been filing periodical returns and they have been paying the Service Tax on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... luded in the value of service for the purpose of assessment in terms of the Board s Circular on the ground that the Board s Circular was applicable to Custom House Agent service and not to the Clearing Forwarding Agent service. He further submitted that the observation of the Commissioner in this regard is erroneous. He said that the Commissioner has included in the value the amounts paid for hiring the barge, godown rent, lorry freight and railway freight incurred for transportation of the goods to the principal s premises, which were expenses incurred on behalf of the principal, which the principal could have incurred but for the engagement of the appellants as CHA. He also invited our attention to para 2.4 of the Board s Circular dated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... brought to the notice of the Department. Therefore, the longer period is justified. In view of the above, the learned JDR prayed that at this stage, the appellants may be put to terms. 7. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the Commissioner has merely gone by the nomenclature of the Agreement entered by the appellants with their customers. The learned Advocate, in his appeal, has clearly distinguished between the activities of the Clearing Forwarding Agent and the Custom House Agent. He also relied on the Board s Circular dated 6-6-1997, which explains the scope of the activities of the Custom House Agent. In this particular case, it is seen that the appellants do not engage in the activity of clearing forwardi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X