TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appeal on Abatement Decision for Clearing Agent Composite Contracts: Tribunal Orders Reconsideration</h1> The Revenue appealed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision allowing abatement of receipts by the Respondents, a clearing and forwarding agent. The dispute ... Abatements for loading and unloading charges – valuation – In this case Tri.-(Kolkata) held that Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order allowed abatement after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of E.V. Mathai and Co. v. Commissioner but in respect of demand there is no finding in the impugned order, thus the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Whether abatement of various receipts like charges for loading and unloading, freight, etc., was rightly allowed from the gross amount received as a clearing and forwarding agent by the Respondents.2. Whether the abatement allowed in the impugned order for composite contracts in respect of clearing and forwarding of cement bags is sustainable.3. Whether the Tribunal's decision in the case of E.V. Mathai and Co. v. Commissioner is applicable in the present case.4. Whether the demand of Rs.11,495/- has been adequately addressed in the impugned order.Analysis:1. The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which allowed abatement of various receipts from the gross amount received by the Respondents as a clearing and forwarding agent. The Revenue contended that for separate contracts providing different services not chargeable to Service Tax, the benefit had already been allowed. The dispute arose regarding composite contracts for clearing and forwarding of cement bags and other services. The Respondents argued that they provide distinct services under separate contracts, justifying the abatement. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the abatements, relying on the Tribunal's decision in E.V. Mathai and Co. v. Commissioner, where abatements were allowed for services not related to C&F agents. However, the Tribunal found that the matter required reconsideration due to the composite nature of the contracts.2. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not addressed the demand of Rs.11,495/- in the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to reconsider the case after providing an opportunity for the Respondents to be heard. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, indicating a need for further examination and clarification on the issues raised.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for fresh consideration, ensuring all aspects are adequately addressed in the legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
