9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments containing any of the facts being involved in the case on hand. Here, the appellant is straightaway treated as a commission agent and consequently, Service Tax was demanded from the appellant for the services allegedly rendered under BAS. There is no whisper about any incentive being received from the liners being commission on sales nor is it the case of the Revenue that the appellant has been receiving commission on a regular basis from the airlines / ships, and nor is their any whisper about discounts being received from the airlines / ships. Rather, the entire profit element is being considered as service charges received by the appellant. The Revenue having alleged that the services rendered by the appellant were under BAS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 263/2012 dated 28.09.2012 and the common impugned Order-in-Original Nos. 7 8/2014 dated 27.08.2014 are that the appellant, M/s. Gordon Woodroffe Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, was booking space for cargo transportation in airlines / ships; during audit of accounts of the appellant, the Officers of the Internal Audit of the Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai appear to have noticed, inter alia, the assessee collecting freight charges for cargo and that the assessee would collect extra charges in excess of the charges paid by them to the air liner / shipper, for which the appellant did not pay Service Tax. The above service appeared to the Revenue as classifiable under BAS since the appellant had acted as a commission agent by providing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019 dated 07.02.2019 in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 182 and 183 of 2012 wherein, according to him, an identical issue has been decided in favour of the appellant and that the demand raised in the impugned orders therein have been set aside. He would also contend that there being no change in the facts, the ratio of the earlier order of this Bench in the appellant s own case deserves to be considered. 7.1 Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Ld. Assistant Commissioner, relied on the findings in the impugned order. 7.2 Shri M. Ambe, Ld. Deputy Commissioner, also brought to the notice of this Bench an order of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. New Era Travel Cargo Agencies v. Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Chennai North Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any of the above documents as to any of the above facts being involved in the case on hand. Here, the appellant is straightaway treated as a commission agent and consequently, Service Tax was demanded from the appellant for the services allegedly rendered under BAS. There is no whisper about any incentive being received from the liners being commission on sales nor is it the case of the Revenue that the appellant has been receiving commission on a regular basis from the airlines / ships, and nor is their any whisper about discounts being received from the airlines / ships. Rather, the entire profit element is being considered as service charges received by the appellant. 8.4 When we consider the above facts as available from the Show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
