9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai South Commissionerate [2018 (7) TMI 333 - CESTAT CHENNAI], held that the demand of service tax on such freight charges under Business Auxiliary Services is unjustified - demand set aside. Penalty - Demand of ₹ 15,53,701/- with interest on excess charges - Held that:- The said demand with interest has been paid up voluntarily by the appellant during the Department audit. Ld. Consultant submits that the appellant is not contesting the said demand - the matter as regards penalty, it is held that there cannot be any penalty in this case since the amount was already paid up on being pointed out - demand upheld - penalty set aside. Demand of ₹ 2,33,285/- on commission received from steamer agents/airlines - time limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harged by the appellant. It further appeared that the appellant had not paid service tax in respect of the non-receipted expenditure incurred during the course of rendering of service and on certain invoices raised from their branches towards charges indicated as free home delivery. It appeared that the appellants were liable to pay service tax liability of ₹ 15,53,701/- with interest on these charges for the period from April 2006 to December 2008. On being pointed out, the appellant paid the amount of ₹ 15,53,701/- towards service tax and ₹ 1,87,792/- towards interest on 15.04.2009. 3.2 It further appeared that appellants had not discharged service tax liability on the commission received from steamer agents/airlines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nses and commission received; (iii) Demand of interest on the above amounts; (iv) Appropriation of the amounts already paid by the assessee; (v) Imposition of penalty of ₹ 2,09,91,661/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. II. With respect to Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2010 : (i) Demand of ₹ 36,00,891/- payable on Business Auxiliary Service; (ii) Demand of interest on the above amount; (iii) Imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. Hence, these appeals. 6. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Consultant Shri. V. Prasanna Krishnan appearing on behalf of the appellant made oral and written submissions, which can be broadly summarized as under : I. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overed by the Supreme Court s judgement in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.). III. In respect of the demand of ₹ 2,33,285/- on commission received from steamer agents/airlines : (i) The demand of ₹ 2,33,285/- on airline/steamer commission is hit by limitation since it is even beyond the extended period of limitation that can be covered in the Show Cause Notice dated 05.04.2010; (ii) Ld. Consultant draws our attention to paragraph 16.0 of the impugned Order to point out that even the adjudicating authority has noted that the demand is prior to October 2004. However, the authority has held that as the amount has been paid vo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion received from steamer agents/airlines : (i) Ld. AR reiterates the observations of the adjudicating authority in paragraph 16.0 of the impugned Order. 8. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 9. We intend to take up the issues one by one. I. In respect of the demand of ₹ 1,92,04,675/- and ₹ 36,00,891/- with interest payable under the category of Business Auxiliary Service : 10.1 We find that the issue in dispute is fully covered in the appellant s favour by the Tribunal decisions cited by the Ld. Consultant for the appellant. The decision in the case of M/s. Freight Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Consultant is in fact applicable on all fours to the case on hand. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
