2024 (1) TMI 725

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issue involved in the above case is identical and since the issue has been settled by this Tribunal, the present appeal do not have any substance. The impugned order is upheld - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
HON'BLE MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) , MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) , MR. C. L. MAHAR Shri Ajay Kumar Samota , Superintendent ( AR ) for the Appellant Shri Jigar Shah , Advocate for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The brief facts of the case are that respondent M/S. Mosaic India Pvt Ltd (formerly known as M/s. Cargill Crop Nutrition India Pvt Ltd ) engaged in the business of import, trading, sale, supply and distribution of various fertilizer and is providing services under various agreements executed with the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... thority in the adjudication process dropped the proceeding of the aforesaid show cause notice therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue appellant submits that the service was provided for handling cargo by the respondent whereas fact remains the respondent have provided the service to their holding company in abroad. Therefore contention of the Adjudicating Authority is incorrect. Accordingly, the dropping of proceeding is illegal and incorrect. 3. Shri Jigar Shah, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent at the outset submits that the very same issue in the respondent's own case has been considered by this Tribunal and the de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with respect to Service Tax on amount received from the principal on saving in ocean freight is required to be allowed. 7. On the last issue of charging Service Tax on services of Cargo Handling, Customs Clearance, Port Services and Transportation as composite services, appellant argued that these were separate services provided by the appellant under different contracts and have to be treated as separate services. It is observed from the case records that it is not a case where an earlier composite contract, without distinction of different services and amounts payable for each service, was later artificially divided for each services. This very bench in the case of Essar Project (India) Limited v. CCE & S.T., Rajkot [2014 (33) S.T.R. 6 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X