Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (8) TMI 1682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tional steamer agents. They are covered within the definition of "Steamer Agents Services" for which they have taken registration and are paying service tax. During the course of audit, Revenue found that there was a huge difference between the total receipts and the amounts on which service tax was paid. The differences were mainly found as follows for the period April 2006 to September 2007:- Sl.No. Particulars Amt in Rs. 1 Services provided abroad 2,00,45,536 2 Freight elements 57,05,644 3 Discount 21,90851 4 Transport 57,17,712 5 Others 45,15,884   Total 3,81,75,627 2. Similar differences were noticed by the Revenue for the entire period of dispute which were not offered for payment of service tax. Revenue was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respective service providers without any mark up. Such amounts were also claimed to be not liable to service tax. 4. The above arguments of the appellant did not find favour with the adjudicating authority. After due process of verification, the entire demand of service tax covered by the three SCNs as above was confirmed totally amounting to Rs. 65,29,558/- for the period October 2003 to September 2007 and Rs. 1,05,67,260/- for the period October 2007 to March 2009. In addition, demand of interest under Section 75 of the Act and various penalties were also imposed under Sections 76, 78 and also under Service Tax Rules, 1994. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeals have been filed which are disposed of by this common order. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... levied as has been held in the case of the Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Diamond Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., in Final Order No. 43161/2017 dated 18.12.2017. Finally he submitted that the impugned order may be set aside. 7. The Ld. AR justified the impugned order. He sought to distinguish the case of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Diamond Shipping. He submitted that the said decision was rendered in the category of CHA services whereas the impugned order deals with steamer agents services. 8. We have heard both sides and perused the records. 9.1 The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the appellant is that most of the amounts received by the appellant for which no service tax has been paid are in the nature of rei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lue of taxable service shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider „for such service‟ and the valuation of tax service cannot be anything more or less than the consideration paid as quid pro qua for rendering such a service. 25. This position did not change even in the amended Section 67 which was inserted on May 1, 2006. Sub-section (4) of Section 67 empowers the rule making authority to lay down the manner in which value of taxable service is to be determined. However, Section 67(4) is expressly made subject to the provisions of sub-section (1). Mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 67 is manifest, as noted above, viz., the service tax is to be paid only on the services actually provided by the service provider. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g lines as there is no payment over and above the reimbursable charges, which can be attributed to any taxable service. Regarding tax liability of the appellant under BAS, we note that the Tribunal in the case of Bhuvaneswari Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2007 (08) STR 167 (Tri.-Bang.), held that the activity of rendering services of arranging shipment of export cargo and negotiating the same with shipping lines on behalf of the clients will not fall under tax liability. The Tribunal held that there is no promotion or marketing services in such an arrangement. The respondent is getting certain amount out of freight collected by the shipping lines. We note there is no service on behalf of third person in such arrangement. By follo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates