TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds from the person booking the consignment, transporting the same to the destination and ultimate delivery by hand to the recipient - The consideration for the service also will be collected by the agency. In the present case, where the appellant has worked as co-loader their role is limited to delivery of the packets to the ultimate customer. For this activity, they have received consideration from the first courier agency. From the nature of the activity undertaken by the appellant, it cannot be said that they have carried out courier service on behalf of another - The transaction between the appellant and the other courier agency is on principal to principal basis. It cannot be said that the service has been rendered on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 - Dated:- 21-11-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Mr. S.K. Pahwa, Advocate For Appellant Ms. Neha Garg, DR For Respondent ORDER Per Mr. V. Padmanabhan The present appeal is filed against the order of Commissioner of service Tax, New Delhi, dated 26.01.2011. In the said order, service to the extent of ₹ 2,39,99,577/- stands confirmed against the appellant along with interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand of service tax stands challenged in the present appeal. Appellant is a provider of service under the category of Courier Service falling under Section 65(33) of the Act. Service tax demanded in respect of co-lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted by them on collect basis. The demand is on the ground that the amount has not been received in convertible foreign exchange. Their submission is that the amount involved in these consignments have been realised by them from abroad by adjustment in foreign exchange against payments owed by tem to courier companies abroad. This is to be considered as receipt in foreign exchange. They have also enclosed certificate from the Chartered Accountant in this regard. 3. Heard Shri S.K. Pahwa, ld. advocate for the appellant and Ms. Neha Garg, ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue. 4. Significant part of the demand pertains to the activity carried out by the appellant to other courier companies as a co-loader. This involves providin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/2007-CX4, dated 18.07.2007 as follows:- 3. Further, the activity also does not qualify to be called as provision of service on behalf of the client. This is because the taxable activity envisaged under this category of BAS is that while the client is obliged to provide some service to a third person but instead of the client providing such service, the service provider provides such service to the third person, on behalf of the client, i.e., acting as an agent of the client. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no 3rd person. Thus, the activity so undertaken does not fall under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) or any other existing taxable services. 7. The transaction between the appellant and the other courier agency is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
