TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim of the Applicant that even though they have entered into the said agreement with M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. they have not received any consignment agency charges from M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. beyond the conversion charges received from M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Case has been built against the Applicant as is clear from the impugned notices that the Applicant had received Rs.250/275 per M.T. as consignment agency charges from M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., but failed to discharge Service Tax as required, under the relevant provisions of Finance Act, 1994. - Applicant had not received the said amount of Rs.250/275 per M.T. even though an agreement to that effect had been entered between the Applicant and M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. In these circumstances, we ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther than Mumbai and Mumbai, respectively. Around eight show cause cum demand notices were issued to the Applicants covering the period from April, 2001 to December, 2009 on the ground that the Applicant had though received consignment agency charges of Rs.250/275 as per agreement dated 30.03.1998 from M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., but failed to discharge appropriate service tax on the same. The Ld. Sr. Advocate further submits that subsequently a tripartite agreement had been entered between M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., the Applicants and various other parties, whereby the said parties were required to render Consignment Agency services. It is the submission of the Ld. Sr. Advocate that the Applicant had paid service charges to those consignment agents a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 30.03.1998 that the Applicant had by the said agreement agreed to provide consignment agency services in addition to conversion of the raw material and the remuneration for rendering such services had been fixed at Rs.250/275 per M.T., as the case may be, hence, it cannot be said that the Applicant had not received any remuneration for providing such services. Ld. A.R. further submitted that even though the same charges are not separately billed or received by way of debit/credit notes by the Applicant, but the same are definitely included in the conversion charges, hence, liable to Service Tax separately, even though excise duty had been paid on the total amount of conversion charges, received by the Applicant from M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. for the Revenue that the said charges of Rs.250/275 per M.T., since included in the conversion charges, therefore, the Applicant are required to discharge Service Tax in addition to the excise duty paid on such converted material including such charges. The Ld. A.R. also could not able to show from the records any evidences that the Applicant received the said amount of Rs.250/275 per M.T. in addition to the conversion charges. In the result, prima facie we find that the Applicant had not received the said amount of Rs.250/275 per M.T. even though an agreement to that effect had been entered between the Applicant and M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Applicant could able to make out a prima facie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
