9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Member Shri Joseph Kodianthara, Sr. Advocate For the Appellant Shri Mohammed Yousuf, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The present two appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original dated 29.2.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, in which demands raised under two show-cause notices were finalised. The first show-cause notice covered the demands for service tax for the periods 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 (Appeal No.ST/216/2008) and the second show-cause notice covers the period 2005-06 (Appeal No.ST/217/2008). These two appeals are being disposed of in the present de novo proceedings before the Tribunal as per directions of the Hon ble High Court of Kerala vide their Order dated 26.3.2012. The Hon ble High Court while remanding the matter to the Tribunal gave directions has follows: 6. After hearing both sides, we are unable to sustain the order of the Tribunal because an open remand leaving all issues open for decision in fresh adjudication means that the said order is not adverse to any of the parties in appeal. Therefore, it is not proper or fair on the part of the Tribunal to have treated any matter as concluded in their e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivities of steamer agent service and custom house agent service . They have taken centralised registration for steamer agency tramp operation at Cochin and the service tax for this operation pertaining to all their branches are being remitted at Cochin. They also provide line agency services from their Mumbai and Delhi offices and service tax is being paid at Mumbai based on registration obtained at Mumbai under steamer agent services . They are not providing line agency services from Cochin. They have also taken separate service tax registration for custom house agency services for Cochin, Chennai and Mumbai. During the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellants were not paying service tax on the full value shown in the profit and loss account for the period 2001-02 to 2004-05. Show-cause notice was issued and the case was adjudicated confirming the demand for service tax for the differential amount. A subsequent show-cause notice and adjudication order was issued for the period 2005-06. The first round of appeals before the Tribunal led to remand orders wherein the Tribunal, after broadly discussing the issues, remanded the case for de novo adjudication. In the remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner, Cochin on the grounds of jurisdiction to recover service tax for the entire differential income other than that accounted for in Cochin. (ii) For the second demanding covering the period 2005-06, Commissioner has accepted their contention on jurisdiction and has restricted the demand only to the differential income pertaining to operations at Cochin. (iii) He admitted that at the time of audit, the appellant was not in a position to immediately split or apportion the difference in the value of services to the operations in various places. However, they have subsequently got detailed charts prepared location-wise, and certified by an independent Chartered Accountant. Their submission is that even though these charts were submitted to the learned adjudicating authority, he allowed deduction only to the extent of line agency services , for which service tax liability has been discharged at Mumbai. (iv) Further, he submitted that the total value of services received also includes receipts by way of various expenses incurred by the appellant on behalf of their customers which are reimbursed by the them. Such receipts cannot be considered as part of value of taxable ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been issued on 22.10.2005 by invoking the extended period of time limit under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The dispute as arisen has a result of the audit undertaken by the department of the assessee s books of accounts. We find that the entire demand made in the show-cause notice is based on the details found in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. On perusal of the show-cause notice, we find that no specific grounds have been made regarding how the assessee has indulged in suppression with intent to evade payment of service tax. The entire case has arisen on account of the fact that the assessee s operations are complex and in different parts of the country and could not readily furnish the split up of location-wise. To compound matters, they have centralised registrations in more than one place for some services and at the same time having individual registrations in many other places. In this background, we are of the view that there is no justification to say that the assessee has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. Consequently, the demand for service tax will have to be limited within the normal period of limitation availab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
