9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant points out the brokerage income (steamer freight) and special commission/ incentive resulted from the bulk buying of freight space in various shipping lines and selling the same to retail customers. He pointed out that the said activity amounted to trading of freight space in shipping lines and not to the activity of promoting the sales of any service provider. He relied on the following decisions: i. DHL Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-II 2017 (6) G.S.T.L 85 (Tri.-Mumbai) ii. Phoenix International Freight Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of S.T., Mumbai-II 2017 (47) S.T.R. 129 (Tri- Mumbai) iii. Greenwich Meridian Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of S.T., Mumbai 2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Marketing and Incidental Auxiliary services under the category of Business Auxiliary Services under the category of business Auxiliary Services and the income (brokerage or commission) so received is chargeable to Service Tax." 4. We have gone through rival submissions. We find that the appellant have contended the brokerage and special commission/incentive is an income received in the activity of trading of freight space in various shipping lines. They have argued that the said issue is covered by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Continental Carriers 2017-TIOL-3964 CESTAT -DEL and also in the case of Karam Freight Movers 2017(4) G.S.T.L 215 (Tri.-Del.). In para 11 of decision in the case of Karam Freight Movers, following has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (A) in his order, in respect of Air Commission has set aside the penalty by observing as follows: "11. However, in case of income from Air Commission, I find that there was an element of doubt, as evidenced by the litigation and subsequent clarification of DGST, issued only after the Hon'ble Bombay High Court intervened in the matter and directed the Director General vide order dated 27.02.2008, restored the writ petition filed in the subject matter and recalled the order under which the directions were issued to the DGST, Mumbai because the DGST, Mumbai has inherent jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order of lower authorities and pass appropriate orders.. I feel that there thus exists a reasonable cause for the reque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
