TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amer Agent under Section 65(100) which specifically covers in its item 2. i.e., to book, advertise or canvas for cargo for or on behalf of a shipping line . This decision was distinguished by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of the appellant where it was held that Appellants are neither booking nor advertising nor canvassing for cargo for and on behalf of shipping line. Their activities are confined to mere purchase and sale of space on board a ship which alone will not make the Appellants a steamer agent. Therefore, the ratio of the Hon'ble CESTAT decision in the case of Bhuvaneshwar Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs.CCE is not applicable in the present case. The decision in D. Pauls Consumer Benefit Ltd . [ 2017 (3) TMI 1019 - CEST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are involved. The show cause notice dated 24.09.2012 is for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. The second show cause notice dated 22.10.2013 is for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. The third show cause notice dated 19.01.2015 is for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. All the three show cause notices were adjudicated upon by a common order dated 08.01.2016 by the Additional Commissioner. While the demand imposed in the show cause notice dated 24.09.2012 was dropped, the demands proposed in the other show cause notices dated 22.10.2013 and 19.10.2015 were confirmed. 4. These two orders passed by the Additional Commissioner were assailed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, by a common order dated 31.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 to 2012-13 against one Satkar Logistics which decision was challenged by Satkar Logistics before the Tribunal in Service Tax Appeal No. 52534 of 2015 and by a decision dated August 21, 2018, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order confirming the demand of service tax. 8. Shri S.B. Hatangadi, Learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Department has, however, placed reliance upon two decisions of the Tribunal in Bhuvaneswari Agencies (P) Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2007 (8) STR 167 (Tri.-Bang.)] a nd D. Pauls Consumer Benefit Ltd. v/s Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi [2017 (52) S.T.R. 429 (Tri.-Del.)] and contended that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007(8) STR 1670) in the present context is concerned, I am inclined to accept the Appellant view point that the facts of the present case and the case before the Hon'ble Tribunal are totally different. In that case, the revenue was proposing to demand Service Tax from an assessee who happened to be a Custom House Agent, on the activities undertaken by them regarding arranging shipment of the export cargo and negotiating the same with chipping lines on behalf of their clients, under taxable service of the category of Business Auxiliary Service. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that the aforesaid service rendered by the CHA would fall under the category of 'Steamer Agent and not under the Business Auxiliary Service. In the present case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
