TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and this Tribunal has consistently held that the service received by the appellant from the overseas companies in delivery of the couriers/ parcels of the customers of India at various international destinations fall under Courier Agency Service , and the services so rendered is in the nature of co-loaders service; accordingly held to be outside the purview of Business Support Service. Also, it is held that since the service is performance based service and provided outside India; hence not taxable. In view of the consistent stand of different Benches of the Tribunal including Bangalore Bench in the case of M/S TNT INDIA LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX BANGALORE-LTU [ 2020 (3) TMI 845 - CESTAT BANGALORE] , there are no reason not to follow the said judgment - it was held in the said case that issue decided in the case of FIRST FLIGHT COURIERS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II [ 2016 (8) TMI 145 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that the services received by the courier agency from the co-loader is not liable to Service Tax, and further where such service is provide by a co-loader situated outside India, the said activity i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged that the appellant was not discharging service tax in respect of taxable services received from joint-venture companies situated abroad in terms of Rule 2(i)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules read with Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, investigation was initiated and copies of relevant agreements etc., were collected from the appellant. On the basis of agreements and other evidences, it is alleged that though the appellant had received taxable services under the category of Business Support Services as defined under clause (zzzq) of Clause 105 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, during the relevant period from overseas joint-venture companies, which fall under the residuary clause (iii) of Rule 3 of Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006; but failed to discharge service tax on the same on reverse charge mechanism. Consequently, demand notice was issued to them for recovery of service tax not paid along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demands have been confirmed with interest and penalty mentioned as above, hence the appeal is filed before this Tribunal. 2.2. Further, for the period from Octob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rary to Board Circular F.No.341/43/96 TRU dt. 31/10/1996, wherein it is clarified that once the service tax paid by the courier agency for in-transit movement of the documents from one point to another through co-loaders, the onward transit services of the same consignment provided by such co-loaders are not chargeable to service tax. v. The foreign companies are courier companies and thus the services rendered by the foreign companies are classifiable under Courier Agency service vide Section 65(33) read with Section 65(105) (f) of the Finance Act, 1994 and not under support service of business or commerce . The said activity is fully rendered/performed and utilised outside India and by virtue of Rule 3(ii) of Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006, the services rendered by the foreign companies cannot be said to be performed in India and taxable accordingly under Section 66A of the Finance Act. vi. The services rendered by the foreign companies are performance-based activities and not recipient based service which is clear from the provisions of Rule 4(a) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness Express India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST [2017(48) STR 270 (Tri. Del.)] c. Fedex Express Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017-TIOL-700-CESTAT-DEL] 4. Per contra, learned Authorised Representative (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. Further, reiterating the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue, the learned AR argued that the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are contrary to the provisions; hence not sustainable. 5. Heard both sides and perused records. 6. The short question involved in the present appeals for determination is: Whether the amount paid by the appellant to the overseas joint-venture companies in delivering the consignments of consignors in India to consignees situated outside India is leviable to service tax under Business Support Service for the period 07/2006 to 09/2013. 7. Undisputed facts are that the appellant are engaged in rendering courier service; accordingly registered with the Service Tax Department. They are providing both domestic and international courier services. For international courier service, the amount collected from the customers in India for delivery of the parcels at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to by the learned advocate for the appellant and this Tribunal has consistently held that the service received by the appellant from the overseas companies in delivery of the couriers/ parcels of the customers of India at various international destinations fall under Courier Agency Service , and the services so rendered is in the nature of co-loaders service; accordingly held to be outside the purview of Business Support Service. Also, it is held that since the service is performance based service and provided outside India; hence not taxable. In view of the consistent stand of different Benches of the Tribunal including Bangalore Bench in the case of TNT India Limited (supra), we do not find any reason not to follow the said judgment. Besides, we find following the said principle, demand notices for different periods issued to the appellants for different periods have been set aside by the Department and no appeals have been filed by the Revenue accepting the said principle of law. 11. In the result, the impugned orders against which appeals filed by the appellant are set aside and their appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. The impugned orders c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
