9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not pay service tax thereon. 2. When the case was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any adjournment request received and therefore, we proceed to decide the case on merits. 3. In its grounds of appeal, the appellant has contended that it was not providing C&FA service, but was providing Cargo Handling Service (CHS) and that the reimbursements of expenses towards loading/unloading/transportation should not have been included in the assessable value and the service tax is leviable only on the commission it received @ Re. 1/- PMT. It also stated that it had bona fide belief about its non-liability to service tax. Certain judgments have also been cited. 4. We have considered the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the company from the outstanding dues of the C&F/security deposit given by the appellant. 5. Clearing & Forwarding Agent is defined in Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994, which is reproduced below :- "(23) Clearing and Forwarding Agent means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, connected with the clearing and forwarding operations in any manner to any other person and includes a consignment agent." As per Section 65(90) ibid, "any service provided to a client by a clearing and forwarding agent in relation to clearing and forwarding operations in any manner would amount to a taxable service". From the definition of C&F Agent and terms and conditions of C&F contract signed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any manner shall be deemed to be the gross amount of remuneration or commission (by whatsoever name called) paid to such agent by the client engaging such agent." Thus, the entire remuneration regardless of its name was to be treated as assessable value. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal as far as the demand of service tax and interest is concerned. However, we find that penalties under Sections 76 and 78 ibid have been imposed. It has been held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of CCE v. First Flight Couriers Ltd. [2011-TIOL-67-HC-P&H-ST = 2011 (22) S.T.R. 622 (P & H)] and CCE v. Pannu Property Dealers, Ludhiana [2010-TIOL-874-HC-P&H-ST = 2011 (24) S.T.R. 173 (P & H)] that even if at the rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
