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>Tribunal Rules in Favor of Taxpayer: Service Tax Not Applicable on Brokerage</h1> <h3>CHAKIAT AGENCIES Versus C.C.,C.E. & S.T. – COCHIN -CCE</h3> CHAKIAT AGENCIES Versus C.C.,C.E. & S.T. – COCHIN -CCE - TMI Issues:Appeal against Commissioner(Appeals) order upholding Orders-in-Original for service tax on brokerage received for business promotion.Analysis:The appellants filed appeals against a common impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) upholding the Orders-in-Original and dismissing the appeals. The issue pertained to the appellant receiving brokerage for promoting the business of other establishments without paying service tax on it. The original authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, alleging willful tax evasion. The appellant contended that the impugned order failed to appreciate the facts and law correctly. They argued that the services provided did not fall under 'Business Auxiliary Service' (BAS) and the received remuneration was merely a business incentive, citing relevant case laws.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant acted as a Customs House Agent and identified vessels for cargo based on shipper requirements, without being an agent for any steamer line. The brokerage earned was a business incentive passed on to the shipper. They emphasized that the same service cannot be taxed twice under different categories and that the appellant dealt with steamer lines on a principal-to-principal basis. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant case laws, found that the services did not fall under BAS. The appellant received brokerage as a business incentive for booking space in ships based on shipper needs, not as a BAS. The Tribunal cited precedents where similar activities were not considered taxable under BAS due to the absence of a third party in the transactions.The Tribunal observed that the issue had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous cases, and hence, the present appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal, following the decisions in previous cases. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential reliefs. The Tribunal pronounced the order on 31/07/2018, dismissing the appeal filed by the department.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
