9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the demand of service tax with respect to co-loader - the demand raised in respect of the services rendered as a co-loader cannot sustain and is required to be set aside. With regard to the demand for the period post 22.08.2007, however, the Ld. Advocate has conceded the same - The same is therefore upheld with interest thereon. Penalty - Held that:- There being no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant to evade payment of service tax - penalty is set aside. It is deemed proper to remand the case to the file of the adjudicating authority who shall work out the demand for the period post 22.08.2007; and it is for the assessee thereafter to convince the adjudicating authority with regard to its claim of payment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (BSS). It was further noticed that the assessee were receiving inbound couriers from Nepal, Sri Lanka and Singapore for which they had only discharged service tax liability in respect of couriers received from Sri Lanka and Singapore. However, on being pointed out, the assessee paid the requisite service tax in respect of couriers received from Nepal during the period from March 2005 to September 2008 on 22.06.2009 and 23.06.2009 along with interest. 2.3 Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 07.04.2010 was issued to the appellants proposing to demand service tax of ₹ 52,86,510/- for the period from 01.05.2006 to 31.03.2009 under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, service tax of ₹ 9,637/- for the period from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as clarified that that Co-loader cannot be considered as rendering any courier service. 4.2 Ld. Advocate submitted that demand with regard to services as co-loader for the balance period post 22.08.2007 was not being contested on merits for which period, the assessee has already discharged service tax and the same is verifiable, if not paid, then the assessee would pay up the same with interest, if any. 5. Per contra, Ld. AR for the Revenue supported the findings of the adjudicating authority. 6. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record and have also gone through the Order of this Bench (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant. 7.1 The issue that arises for consideration is whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is clarified that co-loaders provide service to the courier agencies as such. They do not provide directly any service to the customer who gives the documents, goods or articles to the courier agency for their delivery to the consignee. What is chargeable to service tax is the service provided by courier agency to the customer. In this case, the courier agency being not a customer as such, the service provided by co-loader to the courier agency is not chargeable to service tax. It is significant to point out that the charges of the co-loaders to the courier agency for in-transit movement of goods, documents or articles are in any case ultimately recovered by the courier agency from the customer and these charges are included in the gross am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
