9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent on behalf of their subsidiary companies is concerned. The issue on taxability of service tax on profit/mark up is no more res integra as the same has been decided in catena of decisions, the latest being the judgment in the case of M/s Tiger Logistics (India) Ltd., vs Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Delhi [ 2022 (2) TMI 455 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] . Thus, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishable from the nature of the activity of an agent. The ld AR submitted that the service provided by the respondent by way of arranging services of ship liners for transportation of cargo of their customers in addition to other services, is nothing but arrangement of transport of goods and the respondent had acted as an agent to get space in the ships for the cargo of their clients. The make-up was in the nature of the commission earned by the respondent for working as middleman to arrange supply of transport services and therefore is squarely covered under Business Auxiliary Service as defined under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act 1994. Consequently, Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in setting aside the demand. 3. The Learned Chartered Accountant for the Respondent submitted that the allegations made by department are purely on assumption basis and not backed by any rule. There are various instances where corporate guarantee is given by parties without consideration. He relied on the CESTAT judgement Mumbai in the case of UltraTech Cement Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Mumbai). The Tribunal had noted that there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the pending case. 4. Responding to the above, Mr. Bharat Rai Chandani, learned counsel for the assessee on caveat would read Section 65 (12) of the Finance Act, 1994 to point out that issuance of corporate guarantee to a group company without consideration would not fall within banking and other financial services and is therefore not taxable service. He would also read Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act 1994 to point out that the definition of service would indicate that it relates to only such service which is rendered for valuable consideration. 5. The counsel would next advert to paragraph 3.1.12 of the Commissioner's order where the following was recorded:- "further, the consideration can be of two types viz., monetary consideration and non-monetary consideration. In the present case, the Assessee has argued that they have not received any consideration. In such case it's for the department to prove that the Assessee's claim is wrong. It is observed that nowhere in the Show Cause Notice, attempt has been made to prove that the Assessee received either monetary or nonmonetary consideration in any form. It is not alleged or proved in the Show Cause Notice as to how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue on taxability of service tax on profit/mark up is no more res integra as the same has been decided in catena of decisions, the latest being the judgment in the case of M/s Tiger Logistics (India) Ltd., vs Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Delhi 2022(2)TMI 455-CESTAT NEW DELHI. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinafter:- "9. As far as the differential in ocean freight is concerned, the appellant buys space on ships from the Shipping Line and the Shipping Line issues a Master Bill of Lading in favour of the appellant. In turn, it sells the space to its customers and issues a House Bill of Lading to each of them. The first leg is the contract between the Shipping line and the appellant. The second leg is the contract between the appellant and its customers. Evidently, anyone who trades in any merchandise or service buys low and sells high and the margin is his profit. To earn this profit, he also takes the risk of being unable to sell. In the appellant's case, if the space on the ships which it bought cannot be sold to its customers fully, or due to market conditions, or is compelled to sell at lower than purchase price, the appellant incurs loss. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
