9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trading in container space is found to be correct. Accordingly, on this ground alone demand of Rs. 60,56,570/- plus Rs. 21,12,773/- is set aside. It is further found that the demand of Rs. 20,32,859/- is vague in its nature as no head of service has been identified by the Revenue under which the tax is short paid. Revenue is required to identify the head of service under which tax to be demanded. As the period under dispute is prior to 01.07.2012, this demand is set aside, being vague and uncertain. There is no case of suppression, fraud or wilful mis-statement. Accordingly, penalties imposed under Section 77 and 78 are set aside. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not acting as pure agent and the markup was collected as a consideration for services provided by them to their customers. Further, under Section 67(i) of the Act, it appeared that gross amount for the purpose of calculation of service tax shall include markup amount on the ocean freight charges. It appeared that service tax is payable on the amount of ocean freight plus the markup of the appellant assessee on the basis of details of ocean freight submitted by the appellant for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13. It appeared that they are liable to pay service tax of Rs. 60,56,570/-. Further on reconciliation of financial records with ST-3 returns, it appeared that service tax is short-paid which is calculated as follows: Year Taxable val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under Section 77 and Rs. 86,38,199/- under Section 78 of the Act. 5. Similar periodical notice dated 26.03.2015 was issued for the period 2013-14 which also stood adjudicated by the common Order-in-Original, an amount of Rs. 21,12,773/- was confirmed on account of Ocean Freight with interest. Further penalty of Rs. 2,11,277/- was imposed under Section 76 of the Act and further penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under Section 77 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. The Learned Counsel for the appellant interalia urges that the appellant is a trader in bulk cargo space. The appellant books bulk space for the whole container and thereafter sells the space by way of retai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax being bald and vague, is required to be set aside. It is further urged that appellant has maintained proper books of accounts and vouchers. All the information has been admittedly taken from the records maintained in the normal course of business. No case of concealment or fraud or mis-statement is made out. Accordingly, it is urged that show cause notice is bad for invocation of extended period of limitation. 8. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the appellants have got both receipts in the freight account and also incurred expenditure under ocean freight as per their financial accounts. Claim of the appellant that they are trading in container space is found to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
