TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is Clearing and Forwarding Agents Services. The appellants have also stated that they are paying tax under Business Support Service from 01.05.2006. This will not make any difference as during the period in dispute "Business Support Service” was not in existence in the list of taxable services and after 01.05.2006the classification of the activities will have to be made as per Section 65Aof the Finance Act, 1994. Service Tax authorities at Chengalpattu in Tamil Nadu were asking the appellants to take registration and make payment of duty. However, the appellants have given the impression that the Registration is taken in the office located in Pune and all the matters relating to the Service Tax are being dealt with in Pune Commissionerate . The only conclusion from the said correspondence is that the Pune office was controlling the Chengalpattu operation and were to pay service tax in Pune alone. By taking a separate registration in 2006 the position for the past period cannot be changed. Under the circumstances we hold that the demand notice as well as the proceedings have been held in the correct jurisdiction. Demand is from October 1999 onwards. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the service tax thereafter under the said classification. Their contention is that the warehouse, where the spare parts of motor vehicles being manufactured by M/s. Ford India Ltd., are kept and their activities being carried out, belongs to M/s. Ford India Ltd., and not to them. In addition, M/s. Ford India Ltd ., had provided computers with related softwares to carry out their day to day operations. Further, they were not arranging the transport for receiving or dispatching the goods and in view of this position, their activities cannot be covered under the definition of "Clearing and Forwarding Agents Services. 2.2 The other ground taken by the appellants is relating to the Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune. The appellants have contested that the said warehouse is located in Chengalpattu in Chennai, Tamil Nadu and the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune does not have any jurisdiction in Tamil Nadu. The show-cause notice has been issued by the Pune Commissionerate and is answerable to the Pune Commissionerate authorities. Since Pune Commissionerate has no jurisdiction over the Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu, the show-cause notice as well as the whole adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STR 767 (Tri-Chennai) was also relied upon where a similar view was taken. The appellants also relied upon the Judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Herbo Foundation Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (255) ELT 553 ( Tri.Kol ) to support their contention relating to territorial jurisdiction. The learned Counsel also relied upon the Judgement of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, vs. Dr. Lal Path Lab (P) Ltd. as reported in 2007 (8) STR 337 (P H) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has taken a view that activity of the assessee is confined to a collection centre with facilities and trained employees for drawal of blood samples and to carry out essential processing of blood and forwarding the samples to their lab at Delhi and such activity being merely incidental to the main activity of testing and analysis cannot be Business Auxiliary Service within the meaning under Section 65 (19) (ii) of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The learned A.R. on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority and drew our attention to the agreement between the appellants and M/s. Ford India Ltd., wherein they are receiving service parts man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e controlled movement and storage of service parts within the warehouse (c) Handling Administration of Containers (empty returnable dunnage ) (d) Customer Relations (Article 1.2) ++ Shall mean parts support which shall include but not limited to handling dealer queries on parts and supplier queries on receipts, returns, rejections payments (e) Data Entry/Printing (f) Operating Procedure Systems (g) Cycle count of the service parts (h) Distribution (Article 1.8) ++ Order processing (receiving, acknowledging, allocating orders) ++ Picking, packing of orders ++ Handling shipping and its corresponding documents ++ Invoicing orders ++ Outbound transportation ++ Handling dealer parts support group (inquiries on order status, part stock, part nos , etc.) ++ Handling dealer claims (i) Optional services (Article 1.10) ++ Shall mean all other services, including inbound outbound transport as agreed between FORD and TL from time to time under this agreement. When these services are agreed, they will be treated as part and parcel of this agreement. 4.1 We also note that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding agent" means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, connected with the clearing and forwarding operations in any manner to any other person and includes a consignment agent. The taxable service is to a client, by a clearing and forwarding agent in relation to clearing and forwarding operations, in any manner. 4.3 Examining the various activities undertaken by the appellants with reference to the definition of "clearing and Forwarding Agent service, we do not have any doubt in our mind that the appellants are providing Clearing and Forwarding Agents service. The appellants were receiving goods from various sources, warehousing the goods, receiving orders and based upon the orders the goods were being packed for outbound transportation. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the activities carried out by the appellants are covered within the definition of "Clearing and Forwarding Agent service. The fact that the warehouse or the place of activity is owned or provided by M/s. Ford India Ltd. will not make any difference in the nature of service. Similarly the fact that the transports are arranged by Ford India Ltd. will no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have given the impression that the Registration is taken in the office located in Pune and all the matters relating to the Service Tax are being dealt with in Pune Commissionerate . The only conclusion from the said correspondence is that the Pune office was controlling the Chengalpattu operation and were to pay service tax in Pune alone. By taking a separate registration in 2006 the position for the past period cannot be changed. Under the circumstances we hold that the demand notice as well as the proceedings have been held in the correct jurisdiction and the appellants plea relating to jurisdiction is rejected. 4.5 The next plea of the appellants is that keeping in view the nature of operation they were under the bonafide belief that no service tax is payable and hence extended period of limitation cannot be extended. We note that the demand is from October 1999 onwards. The appellant had not taken any registration. The first time they took registration was in December 2001 relating to clearing and forwarding services. However, after taking the registration they did not pay service tax or filed any returns. After sometime they started correspondence disputing the leviability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
