9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice Tax Department for various services like 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service', 'Storage and Warehousing Service', 'Packing Services' Goods Transport Agency Service' etc. They were paying their service tax liability and were filing due ST-3 Return. 2. Based upon the Form 26AS statement obtained from the Income Tax Department and on comparing the same with ST-3 Returns, certain discrepancies were noticed. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 03 November, 2017 proposing confirmation of demand of service tax to the tune of Rs. 3,79,95,386/- for the period 2012-13 to 2016-17. However, major part of the demand was dropped by the Adjudicating Authority and only the demand to the tune of Rs. 35.62,714/- stands c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 2012-13. (ii) The next demand is of Rs. 62,456/- for services rendered to M/s. Spriha Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd., reflected in Table DS2 (Page 110). It is on record that for the services of loading and unloading the appellants had charged and paid the services tax. No service tax was paid on transportation charges since the liability was on the recipient. In any case, for transportation of vegetable seeds, an agricultural produce, no service tax was payable vide serial no 21 (a) of notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Further, though the appellants could not submit the agreements at the relevant point of the time they did provide a copy of the bill dated 31.08.2012 (wrongly mentioned as dated 31.08.2018 since the O-in-O itself i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etrochemicals Corporation Ltd. However, for the year 2012-13 an amount and Rs. 18,533.5 has been assigned to the appellants towards payment of service tax since the recipient did not pay the tax of this portion (pg-107). It is submitted that the demand on this amount should have been raised on the GTA service recipient and not on the appellants. (e) in respect of serial no. 5 of Table DS3, the position is the same as the product involved is chemical fertilizer. The service recipient is Mosaci India Pvt. Ltd (page no. 107 and 108 of the appeal) (f) Same logic would apply for serial nos. 6 and 7 of Table DS3. (g) As regard items mentioned at serial nos. 8 to 17 of Table DS3 these all relate to transportation of exempted items like ferti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terpretation issue as to whether the service providing by the appellants were GTA services or C&F Agent service. Hence, extended period cannot be invoked. E. For the same reason no penalty is called for. F. To be called a C&F agent the service provider should be providing both the services simultaneously --- that of 'clearance' as well as 'forwarding'. In this case the appellants were not doing any clearance work but only that of transportation and all incidental works connected with transportation, like loading, unloading, stacking, etc. (could be 'cargo handling service'?) 6. In view of the above the appeal may kindly be allowed. 4. We note that the above contentions raised by the appellant relates to the factual verification, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
