2023 (7) TMI 1171 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal allowed due to exceeding scope of notice in Steamer Agent Services case

M/s IAL India Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order confirming the demand under 'Steamer Agent Services' due to exceeding the scope of the original ... Scope of SCN - only issue raised in the show cause notice was whether the services provided by the appellant fall under the category of clearing and forwarding agent Services - Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has traversed beyond the scope of the notice by holding that the service provided by the appellant relating to terminal handling services and bill of lading are classifiable under steamer agent services. HELD THAT:- Admittedly original show cause notice dated 21.10.2010 was issued demanding service tax under the category of clearing and forwarding agent service and the original authority has also confirmed the demand under the category of clearing and forwarding services - it is found that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order dropped the demand under ocean freight but wrongly confirmed the demand relating to terminal handling charges and bill of lading under steamer agent services which is not permissible in law. Reference made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI VERSUS TOYO ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED [2006 (8) TMI 184 - SUPREME COURT] and WARNER HINDUSTAN LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD [1999 (8) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that the Department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. The impugned order confirming the demand under “Steamer Agent Services” is not sustainable in law and we set aside the same on this ground alone without further going into other issues and limitation - Appeal allowed. Issues involved:The issues involved in this case are the demand for service tax under 'Steamer Agent Service' without quantifying the same, the classification of services provided by the appellant, the scope of the original show cause notice, and the applicability of the extended period of limitation.Demand under 'Steamer Agent Service' without quantification:The appellant, a provider of various services including 'Steamer Agent Service,' challenged the demand for service tax based on a show cause notice. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand under clearing and forwarding service, penalty, and interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand under 'Steamer Agent Service' without quantifying it, leading to the present appeal.Scope of original show cause notice:The appellant argued that the impugned order exceeded the scope of the original show cause notice by including terminal handling charges and bill of lading under steamer agent services. The appellant contended that the Department cannot go beyond the issues raised in the notice, citing legal precedents to support this argument.Classification of services provided:The appellant contended that terminal handling services are not related to steamer agent services as per the definition provided in the law. They argued that the services were provided to the shipper of the cargo, not the shipping line, and therefore should not be classified as steamer agent services. The appellant also highlighted that bill of lading charges were already taxed under Business Auxiliary Service.Applicability of extended period of limitation:The appellant asserted that the demand for the year 2005-06 was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued in 2010 invoking the extended period of limitation. They argued that the conditions for invoking the extended period of limitation were not met in this case.Judgment:The Tribunal found that the impugned order confirming the demand under 'Steamer Agent Services' exceeded the scope of the original show cause notice. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the Department cannot go beyond the issues raised in the notice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order solely on this ground, without delving into other issues or the limitation aspect. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per the law.