9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-, education cess of Rs. 32,541/- and interest of Rs. 15,915/- were paid during the course of investigations, a fact noted in the Commissioner's order. The impugned demand is under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services'. More precisely, it is on an amount earned by the assessee during the above period towards what has been found by the Commissioner to be 'commission' for the sale of space for cargo in aircrafts belonging to various airlines in terms of agreements entered into with them. It is submitted by the learned Consultant that the amounts paid by the appellants during the investigative stage are for the normal period of one year with reference to the date of the relevant show-cause notice. We note that these payments were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that matter, cannot have any bearing on the Department's allegation of suppression levelled against the appellants. In this connection, reference has been made to Stay Order No. 354/2008, dated 5-5-2008 [2008 (11) S.T.R. 471 (Tribunal)], passed by this Bench in Appeal No. S/26/2008 of M/s. Sky Lift Cargo (P) Ltd. In the said stay order, the facts stated today by the learned Consultant in relation to the DGST's order were considered in the context of dealing with a time-bar plea raised by the above party. The learned Consultant has also relied on Bhuvaneswari Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 167 (Tri.-Bang.), wherein the activity of arranging shipment of export cargo and negotiating the same with the shipping lines on beh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... differential amount. As a matter of fact, they paid the tax along with education cess and interest for the normal period. Coming to the plea of limitation, we are not impressed with the argument made by the learned Consultant on the basis of the DGST's order. That order was issued in 2005 during the extended period of limitation and the same made it clear to the trade that air cargo agents could be classified as providers of business auxiliary services and were liable to pay service tax accordingly. It is not the case of the appellants that the DGST's order was set aside by any competent court. Admittedly, it was issued by the DGST pursuant to an order of the Hon'ble High Court. Though that order was withdrawn by the High Court, the DGST's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
