9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivity - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos.ST/40931/2016 & ST/40932/2016 - FINAL ORDER No. 42656-42657/2018 - Dated:- 24-10-2018 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri G. Sivakumar, Consultant For the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar The appellants are a air cargo agent and are paying service tax on the commission amount paid from the airlines. Department took the view that appellants should have been paying service tax also on the freight charges reimbursed by them from their customers charged over and above the freight amount payable to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the intention of the Department is to tax the entire amount collected from the Customer in the hands of the Appellant assessee still the demand would fail for the reasons below : a. The Appellant is merely an agent collecting the freight on behalf of the Airlines and hence, the amount collected cannot be treated as Service Provided by the Appellant-assessee to the Customers. b. In any case, on the freight amount, Service Tax has already been paid by the Airlines and hence, only again taxing the same in the hands of the Appellant, would amount to Double-taxation, which is incorrect. Reliance is placed on Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNOCRATS PVT.LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA ANR 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eight amount collected from the Customer and paid to the Airlines. Reliance is placed on :- 1. M/s.Skylift Cargo (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai And (Vice-Versa) 2018 (2) TMI 320 - CESTAT CHENNAI 2. M/s.La Freight Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai 2018 (3) TMI 113 - CESTAT CHENNAI 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, supports the impugned order. He submits that the assessee adopts two type of transaction, one in respect of which they act as intermediary which involves commission on agreed terms and the other booking cargo space from Airlines and sale to their cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the assessee by way of issue of show-cause notices. These proceedings culminated in confirmation of demands of differential service tax liability of ₹ 19,98,332/- and ₹ 93,11,332/- respectively with interest liability thereon. Penalties, which were upheld by the impugned orders in respect of appeal nos.ST/00026/2008 and ST/20005/2009. Aggrieved, assessees are before this forum. We find that the facts of this case are pari materia with those in Skylift Cargo (P) Ltd. (supra) and La Freight Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST Chennai (supra) relied upon by Ld. Advocate wherein the issue was held in favour of the assessee. We also find that the same view has been taken by this Tribunal earlier als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
