9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Greenwich Meridian Logistics [2016 (4) TMI 547 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that The notional surplus earned thereby arises from purchases and sale of space and not by acting for a client who has space or slot on a vessel. Section 65(19) ibid will not address these independent principal-to-principal transactions of the appellant and, with the space so purchased being allocable only by the appellant, the shipping line fails in description as client whose services are promoted or marketed. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- By no account, can the department make an allegation that the activities of the appellants had been suppressed by them. This being so, the delayed issue of the SCN only on 23.10.2008 for the period 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d over the container to the carrier / Liner agents; that the overseas liner agents in turn prepare a bill of lading showing M/s.Swift as the consignor and their representative / agent at Hub port as consignee; that the reverse of this is applicable for import cargo that is handled by them. On their export container loads, they are reimbursed 2% brokerage by liner agent on the freight. They have a centralized registration at Chennai and are paying service tax for all the branches in Chennai. It appeared to the department that the main activity of appellant is promoting services of various shipping lines and also managing distribution and logistics and that the services performed by appellants would be liable to classify under Business Auxil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal to classify identical activity under two different taxable service is not sustainable. She relies upon the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. 2007-TIOL-118-SC-CX. Ld. Advocate submits that SCN is also barred by limitation. SCN was issued on 23.10.2008 whereas the appellants had entered into various communications on the issue with the department on 11.2.1998, 26.3.1998, 13.10.2000, 23.11.2000, 25.10.2007 etc. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Ms. T. Usha Devi reiterates the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. We find that the Ld. Advocate is correct in her assertion that the issue concerning taxability of services performed by Multimodal Transport Operator has been laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollected from client-shippers in two independent transactions. 4.2. We further find that even as far back as 11.02.1998, the department had information from the appellants with regard to their activity which was in turn replied and conveyed vide appellant s letter dt. Nil and 26.3.1998. Further, subsequently appellants have also vide a letter dt. 13.10.2000 requested for clarification for payment of service tax as MTO. In response, the department vide their letter dt.23.11.2000 conveyed that MTO is exempt from liable to service tax. Even thereafter the appellants had preferred a letter dt. 25.7.2007 enclosing a note of the activities carried out by their company and in the income streams. By no account, can the department make an allega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
