9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No. 87207 of 2015 - A/86504/2019 - Dated:- 14-5-2019 - Hon ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Shri P. Paranjape, Advocate along with Ms. Ruchi Parmar, C.A. for the Appellant Shri K.M. Mondal, Special Counsel for the Respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai, pursuant to the remand direction contained in Final Order No. A/1379/2014-WZB/C-I (CSTB) dated 12.08.2014 passed by this Tribunal. The relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment and submit all the requisite particulars, such as, the amount of ocean freight and other charges collected by them and the amount transmitted by them to the foreign shipping lines and the amount of consideration received/retained by them in respect of the services rendered and whether Service Tax liability has been discharged on the consideration received by them for rendering of the services. On submission of such information, the adjudicating authority shall examine the matter afresh and pass a speaking order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition is also disposed of. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 12.08.2014, the original authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the SCN. 4. OIO is beyond remand direction Tax demand confirmed on CAF and AMS. Remand was only to verify remittance outside India. 5. Tax demand confirmed for period April 2007 to September 2007 is beyond SCN. 6. Duplication of demand to the extent Chennai and Kolkata locations have also been issued notices for period May 2006 to March 2011 and April 2006 to March 2010 respectively. 7. A new case made out in the OIO to the extent commenting on pure-reimbursement and reference to Service Tax Valuation Rules 2006. 8. Ignored that Appellant has indeed remitted what was collected on behalf of the principal-APL Co Pte Limited. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
