TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) and also C F agent. The Revenue issued show cause notice dated 15-6-2005 on the ground that the appellants had short paid the Service tax for the period from 2001 to 2004 in respect of the services rendered as CHA and C F agent. Interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act was demanded. Penalties were proposed under Sections 76, 77 78 ibid. The adjudicating authority confirmed an amount of Rs. 3,96,51,830/- in respect of CHA services. As regards C F agent services, he demanded a sum of Rs. 28,64,280/-. The extended period was invoked. The following penalties were imposed. (a) Rs. 200/- per day under Section 76; (b) Rs. 1000/- under Section 77; (c) A penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 78 The interest under Section 75 was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is contention, the learned Sr. Counsel referred to the Tribunal judgment rendered in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that additional documents are required, then the same could have been sought in course of hearing. (iii) The appellants explained in detail the nature of various recoveries such as CCX Fees, Break Bulk fees, Sea Freight/Airline commission, Airline incentive, Freight Rebate, Profit share etc. with reasons as to why they are not connected with the CHA services. The Adjudicating Authority brushed aside the submission by only stating that the appellants failed to produce evidence. He has not given a single reason as to why these recoveries are taxable under the CHA services. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es incurred on behalf of the client. The income arising from reimbursable expenses when charged on a notional or equilised basis is not chargeable to service tax in the light of Board's Circular dated June 6, 1997 in the light of the following judicial decisions (a) Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v. CCE [1997 (94) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.)] (b) Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CCE [1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.)] (c) Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin [2003 (160) E.L.T. 836] (d) HPL Chemicals v. CCE, Chandigarh [2003 (162) E.L.T. 357] (e) Trans peck Industry Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda [2003 (162) E.L.T. 1095] (vi) In respect of C F agent services, the appellants have discharged the service tax liability on the management and the Adjudicating Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention to the effect that they received payment towards other activities. Thus he has shifted the burden of proof on the appellants. He has not discussed how the following items would come within the scope of CHA services (i) CCX Fees (ii) Expense Reimbursement billing (iii) Break Bulk Fees (iv) Sea Freight/Airline Commission (v) Airline Incentive (vi) Freight rebate (Air/Sea/Consol) (vii) Profit share from origin (viii) Unallocated Income (ix) System Currency Adjustment Factor Thus the order is not a speaking order and bad in law. It is also seen that he appellants are receiving reimbursement from their clients for various expenses incurred on their behalf. The Department has sought to levy service tax n these receip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
