9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Commissionerate. The dispute relates to the period from 01.05.2006 to 31.03.2009. 2.1 The assessee is engaged in providing Courier Agency Service and is registered with the Service Tax Department. During the course of audit of accounts, it was noticed by the Officers of the Internal Audit Section of the Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai, that the assessee had provided Courier Agency Service for both inbound and outbound documents, goods or articles and had also provided services as co-loader i.e., forwarding of documents, goods or articles received from M/s. Professional Courier. 2.2 On verification of accounts, it was noticed that the assessee had not paid service tax on the charges collected by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eared on behalf of the assessee-appellant while Ld. ADC (AR) Shri. A. Cletus appeared on behalf of the Department-respondent. 4.1 During the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that the issue involved in the case on hand related to the demand of service tax for the services provided as a co-loader under the Heading Business Support Service for the period from 01.05.2006 to 22.08.2007. He submitted that the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of CESTAT, Chennai in the case of M/s. Concord Express Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai vide Final Order No. 42181/2018 dated 01.08.2018, wherein the Tribunal while following the decision in the case of United Business Xpress Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below : "5.1 The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax as a co-loader. The Ld. Counsel has vehemently relied upon the Circular No. 341/43/1996 dt. 01.11.1996. The relevant portion of the Circular is reproduced as under : "15. It has been pointed out that in some cases one courier agency, who undertakes to deliver the documents goods or articles received from customers, utilises the services of another company of in-transit movement of such documents, etc., from one point to another. These are, technically, called co-loaders. The co-loader undertakes to transport the documents, goods or articles on behalf of the courier agency and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the applicability of both the Circulars. The issue was then held in favour of the assessee. We find no reason to take a different view. Thus, following the said decision as well as the facts of this issue, we are of the considered opinion that the demand raised in respect of co-loader cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. " 7.2 There being no change with regard to facts, the above ruling squarely applies to the case on hand. We therefore do not find any cogent reason to deviate from the same and hence following the above ratio we are of the considered opinion that the demand raised in respect of the services rendered as a co-loader cannot sustain and is required to be set aside, which we hereby do. 8. With ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
