2017 (1) TMI 1824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... usiness associates/franchise in connection with delivery of consignments - HELD THAT:- The findings of the Original Authority regarding tax liability of the appellant under Business Auxiliary Services, is devoid of any legal merit. He mentioned the clarification dated 31.10.1996 is for Courier Services. Business Auxiliary Services was brought to tax net thereafter only and hence, the appellants a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent And Hon ble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Ms. Antra Sen, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR ORDER PER B. RAVICHANDRAN The present appeal is against order dated 19.12.2011 of Commissioner (Adjudication), Service Tax, New Delhi. The appellants are engaged in providing taxable service under the category of Courier Servi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble only to service provided to customer by Courier Agency. The word, a customer was substituted with the term to any person from 16.5.2008. From that date co-loading provided to any other Courier Agency also become taxable. She relied on a clarification dated 31.10.1996, issued by the Board regarding the tax liability on co-loading service. It has been categorically classified that co-loaders .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terated the findings of the Original Authority and stated that tax liability on the appellant has been correctly upheld by the Original Authority. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. We have perused the impugned order and noted that findings of the Original Authority regarding tax liability of the appellant under Business Auxiliary Services, is devoid of any legal merit. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is two party arrangements with no role for the customer in such arrangement. We are not able to appreciate as to what type of service has been provided by the appellant to any third party on behalf of the client. 5. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the impugned order and accordingly, set-aside the same. The appeal is allowed. [Pronounced in the open Court on 04.01.2017] .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X