TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 123 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ]. From the above decision it can be seen that the tribunal is of the view that extended period cannot be invoked. The present case is on much better footing for the reason that the show cause notice dated 08.10.2013 was issued subsequent to the earlier show cause notice, therefore, not only on the fact but also on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar [ 2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT] that suppression of fact cannot be invoked in respect of the subsequent show cause notice when on the same issue earlier show cause notice was issued. The demand for the extended period in the present appeal is not sustainable. However, demand for the normal period is sustainable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal while considering the overall issue and facts of the case for the earlier period set aside the demand for the extended period in the appellant's own case. The order is reproduced below:- The brief facts of the matter are that appellant are working as sub agent of Steamer Agent and providing services under the category of Business Auxiliary Services and Business Support Services . The appellant were appointed as sub-agent by M/s. Freight Connection India Pvt. Limited to perform various works under the category of Steamer Agency Service. M/s. Freight Connection India Pvt. Limited is the main Steamer Agent who provides service to various shipping lines i.e. Arc Lines, Bay Lines etc. In short, the scope of work performed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-appeal dated 26.02.2013 and 31.10.2013. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant have not provided service of the Steamer Agent to any shipping line. The department s contention that M/s. Freight Connection India Pvt. Limited is the principal and the appellants being termed as the steamer agent is legally incorrect. It has been argued that correct hierarchy in the business of shipping that various foreign shipping lines are principals who have appointed M/s. Freight Connection India Pvt. Limited as steamer agent by various shipping lines. The department has wrongly interpreted the provisions and considered M/s. Freight Connection India Pvt. Limited as principal and the appellant as its sub-agent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax on such service need to be discharged by the M/s. Freight Connection India Pvt. Limited. It is submitted that M/s. Freight Connection India Pvt. Limited has been paying service tax on the charges received by them from various shipping lines. It has further been submitted by learned Advocate that had the tax been paid by the appellant the same would have been available as Cenvat credit to M/s. Freight Connection India Pvt. Limited and therefore, there is no revenue effect in the entire exercise and hence the matter is revenue neutrality. Therefore, there should not have any demand from them as entire amount of the service charges have been included by M/s. Freight Connection India Pvt. Limited with regard to payment of service tax. The le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case as the issue involved was of interpretation of law wherein the trade was of the view that sub-contractor who has provided service to the main contractor are not required to pay any service tax. 3. We have heard both the sides in detail and are of the view that only question needs to be answered by us is whether the appellant are liable to pay service on the amount received by them as brokerage under the category of steamer agent service or not. 4. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to reproduce the definition of Steamer Agent given under Section 65(100) of the Finance Act, 1994 which reads as follows:- Steamer Agent' means any person who undertakes either directly or indirectly. (i) to perform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elopers Pvt. Limited 2020 (33) GSTL 116 (Tri. LB) wherein it has been categorically held that it is not open to a sub-agent contend that he should subject to service tax liability in respect of service tax liability when the main contractor has paid service tax on the gross amount. Thus, we are of the view that since the appellant being a sub-contractor has provided the service of the steamer agent, they are liable to pay service tax. 6. As regards the invocation of extended period under proviso to Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, we find that there has been a lot of confusion and mis-understanding in the trade whether the sub-agent need to pay service tax on the amount charged by them from the main contractor/ agent who has already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
