9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant. 2.1 Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is a public limited company providing various services like Customs House Agency Services, Port Services, Steamer Agency Services, Technical Inspection Services, Certification Services and Goods Transport Agency Services ('GTA') and have Service Tax registration with the Department. The appellant has been providing GTA services to various clients and in order to provide these services, the appellant is hiring vehicles from vehicle owners for the transportation of the goods. In return, the appellant is paying hire charges to the vehicle owners as per the agreements entered into with them. The appellant in many instances has executed work orders with the clients wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der BAS and suppression of taxable amounts received. 2.3 The appellant filed detailed reply to the show cause notice and after following the due process, the Original Authority confirmed the demand of service tax under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act. Penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were also imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the Original Authority and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4.1 The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged 'extra amounts' collected by the appellant from their clients are liable to service tax under BAS. 4.5 He further submits that no specific clause under BAS has been mentioned in the show cause notice, but the Original Authority has made out a new case by holding that the appellant's case is squarely covered under clause (iv) "procurement of goods or services which are inputs for the client" as provided in Section 65(19) of the Act. In support of his submission, he relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of IDAA Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs CST, Mumbai - 2013-TIOL-586-CESTAT-MUM, wherein the Tribunal has held as below: "Neither in the show cause notice nor in the impugned order is there any proposal to classify the service r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the provisions of law. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that the undisputed fact in the present case is that the appellant renders service of transporting goods of their customers in exchange for a 'consideration' and for this purpose, the appellant hires vehicles from third party owners under the agreement. Further, the appellant's customers are not privy to the agreement for hiring vehicles and the 'Margin Money' collected and retained by the appellant is nothing but the surplus of transportation income, over and above the hire charges paid, on which service tax is paid after availment of 75% abatement. 7. We also find that in the appellant's own case for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
