9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identifying the presence of physical handling of cargo by the appellant. We find that there is no evidence to identify the appellant s activities as Cargo Handling Agent . Accordingly, the service tax liability on this account will not survive.''' Further it was held that ' Regarding tax liability under BAS for incentives received from liners, we note that the matter stand settled by the Tribunal decision in the case of BAX GLOBAL INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [ 2017 (9) TMI 1264 - CESTAT CHENNAI] . Following the said ratio, we hold that service tax liability of the appellant on this issue cannot sustain. The matter stands settled in favour of the appellant, on both the issues with regard to Cargo Ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cargo Handling Services and as per Section 67 of the Finance Act 1944, Service Tax is liable to be paid on the gross amount charged by the service provider for the above services. Accordingly, demand of Rs. 1,08,60,498/- was confirmed. Similarly, the appellant also collected certain amounts for booking cargo space for exporters in airlines and got a Commission by virtue of the Tripartite Agreement between IATA airlines and the agents, this Commission being in the nature of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS), the appellant had to pay Service Tax on the same. On this account, demand of Rs.67,866/- was confirmed. Since the above facts were suppressed and it was only noticed by the department only during the audit visit, extended period was invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been settled in their favour. It is also submitted that the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Haiko Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. vide Final Order No. 51028-51030/2023 dated 10.08.2023 held that the appellant was not acting as an agent on behalf of the shipping lines as it only bought and sold space on its own account and this activity cannot be considered as Cargo Handling Service. 2.2 The learned counsel also submits that with regard to Business Auxiliary Service, the demand is time barred as the department was aware of the nature of activity undertaken by them based on the letters received from Association of Air Cargo Agents and in view of the above, the question of suppression did not arise. 3. The Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On perusal of the activities for such consideration, it is clear that none of them involve handling of cargo physically and these are activities which are mainly monitoring, managing the consolidation/de-consolidation of multiple/bulk cargo for which various charges are collected. We could not find any specific activity which is involving physical handling of import cargo by the appellants. No evidence to that effect has been discussed in the impugned order also. The impugned order infer that these fees/charges are to be attributed to the Cargo Handling Service without identifying the presence of physical handling of cargo by the appellant. We find that there is no evidence to identify the appellant s activities as Cargo Handling Agent . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
