9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri J. Shankarraman, Advocate For the Appellant Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellants are providers of services under the categories of Customs House Agent, Business Auxiliary Service, Business Support Service etc. On verification of accounts, it was revealed that they had entered into an agency agreement with M/s.Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. and provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcept restricting the penalty imposed under Section 78 to Rs. 62,500/- and appropriated. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellants, Ld. Counsel Shri J. Shankarraman appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that appellant as agents of M/s. Kawasaki Liner Service were providing services on behalf of Kawasaki to shippers / consignees. As part of such services, the appellants were collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rendered to M/s.Kawasaki. It is only an expense collected from the shippers on behalf of M/s.Kawasaki and paid to them. 2. Ld. A.R. Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that appellants were providing other services and have provided port handling as well as terminal handling services. The charges so collected by the appellants have to be included in the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollecting the port handling charges or terminal handling charges, appellants have not rendered any such service under this category. It is in fact Kawasaki Liner Service who have rendered these services. The appellants having not provided any service of port handling or terminal handling service and having not collected any consideration in this regard, we are of the considered view that the deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
