TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower authorities or even in Tribunal. In view of that the facts of the case are different and therefore the said decision have no applicability in the instant case - demand under the head Business Auxiliary Service upheld. Benefit of Notification No. 13/2003 - Held that:- It is seen that only commission agent involved in purchase and sale of goods were exempted by virtue of this notification. In the instant case, there is no purchase and sale of goods and therefore, the said notification does not apply to this case. Time Limitation - Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeals) in her order has specifically observed that there was an element of doubt at the material time as is evidence by the litigation and clarification of DGST, in these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission for rendering of such services. They were not providing any service for transportation/holding of cargo from the place of customer to the place of lifting of cargo by the Airlines i.e. Air Cargo Complex, but the customers were managing the same themselves. They collect the bill amount from the customers and forward the bill amount to the concerned Airlines after deducting their commission portion as per the rate decided. In respect of the said activity, Revenue alleged that it amounted to provisions of Business Auxiliary Service taxable w.e.f. 1.7.2003. Their firm was registered under the category of the Business Auxiliary Service since 30.03.2005 with the Service Tax Department, Ahmedabad and paying Service Tax on regular basis. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art of the value of the service provided to Airlines. 2.4 He further argued that the taxable service of commission agent was exempted vide Notification No. 13/2003 dated 26.3.2003 up to 9.7.2004. Hence, if they are treated as commission agent even then there is no tax liability due to Notification No. 13/2003. He further argued that the demand is barred by limitation. He argued that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) herself has stated as follows: - I find that there was an element of doubt, as evidences by the litigation and subsequent clarifidcation of the DGST, issued only after the Hon'ble Bombay High Court intervened in the matter and directed the Director General of Service Tax to pass reasoned order. I feel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, the said notification does not apply to this case. 4.2 The appellants have claimed that during the period 1.7.2003 to 31.3.2006, the amount received on account of Airway bill fee, PCS charges and Due agent charges were not taxable as the same were received from the shippers/exporters. We do not find merit in the said claim. The appellant have admitted that they were not issuing Airway bill to the customers. Blank Airway bills which were supplied by the airways, were issue on behalf of the respective Airlines. In this case since the entire payment was being received by the appellant on behalf of the Airlines. They were clearly acting as agent of the Airlines. After deducting their commission and the airway bill charges, PCS charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
