TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT Kolkata: Appellants' Services, Tax Liability, Pre-deposit Rule</h1> <h3>UNITED ENTERPRISES Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, PATNA</h3> The CESTAT, Kolkata, held that the Appellants' activities aligned more with C & F Agent Services than Cargo Handling Agent Services based on their ... Stay – clearing and forwarding agent (CFA) versus cargo handling agency – appellants argues that since cargo handling service relating to export cargo is not taxable the Appellants are not liable to pay any Service Tax nor liable to any penalty – held that - contract between M/s. SAIL and the Appellants clearly indicates that the Appellants were required to undertake major operations such as unloading of the cargo from the railway siding, transportation of the same to the transshipment storage yard, stacking of the cargo and subsequent delivery of the cargo to the Nepalese importers. The original Authority has also recorded in his order the details of activities undertaken by the Appellants and has come to a conclusion that the nature of activities undertaken by the Appellants would be classifiable under the C & F Agent Services – stay granted partially The appellate tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA, consisting of Shri S.S. Kang and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, heard an appeal represented by Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay for the Appellant and Shri A.K. Sharma for the Respondent. The Appellant argued that they worked as a Cargo Handling Agent for M/s. SAIL and, therefore, were not liable for service tax or penalties. The Department argued that the Appellants were actually providing C & F services. The tribunal reviewed the contract between M/s. SAIL and the Appellants and found that the Appellants' activities aligned more with C & F Agent Services than Cargo Handling Agent Services, as they undertook various activities typical of a C & F agent. Regarding the argument of limitation, the tribunal found that the Department did not have relevant details until after a summons was issued, so the demand could not be considered time-barred. The Appellants were directed to pre-deposit 25% of the tax amount within six weeks, with the remaining balance waived during the appeal process. The judgement was pronounced and dictated in open court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
