TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods during transportation. However, such facts are not coming out very clearly from the order impugned before us. The applicant took the services of shipping lines for transportation of goods. While rendering such service, they charge to their clients under various headings as listed herein:- (i) Bill of Lading (ii) Terminal Handling Charges (iii) Agency Charges (iv) Transportation Cost (v) Loading and Unloading Charges (vi) Measurement Charges (vii) Striping Charges (viii) Palatization Charges (ix) Customs Clearance Charges (x) Wharfage Charges (xi) Cargo Shifting Charges (xii) Survey Charges (xiii) Stuffing Charges (xiv) Handling Charges (xv) CMC-EDI Charges (xvi) Fumigation Charges (xvii) AAI Charges (xviii) Insurance charges (xix) Dem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority has classified the service under "Business Auxiliary Service" and, therefore, the order goes beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notices. His second argument is that during the relevant period, there was no entry in the Finance Act, 1994 for taxing transportation by sea. His third argument is that Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, which was initially proposed in the Show Cause Notices have been struck down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & ANR reported in. Therefore, any such demand on ocean freight is not maintainable. Once demand in respect of ocean freight goes there is hardly any demand left out of the confirmed demand. 3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ords. We take note of the fact that during the relevant period transportation by sea was not taxable. It is far-fetched to tax such a substantial activity as part of the "Business Support Service" and this issue has been dealt with in stay orders already passed. Now, the only issue to be examined is whether the present case is on the same footing as that of M/s. Leaap International Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It is argued that the appellant was issuing the Bill of Lading as a multimodal transport operator and such aspect is not considered in the case of M/s Leaap International. When Bill of Lading is issued and the applicant is acting in a joint activity, they are entitled to their profit and such an activity cannot be considered as procurement of s....