TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as under:- 1.1 The appellant are a subsidiary company of M/s. Expeditors International Inc., (U.S.A.). Both, the appellant and their holding company in USA are engaged in the business of international logistics and freight forwarding. The appellant are registered with service tax department for payment of service tax on various taxable services including the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service received by them. In course of scrutiny of their record it was found that the appellant during the period from 19.04.06 to 13.01.11 have paid various amounts to their holding company from time to time under the head 'Global Account Manager'(GAM), expenses and International Private Leased Circuit (IPCL) charges. The GAM expenses are paid by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o service tax under reverse charges mechanism of section 66A. It was found that the appellant had provided Cargo Handling and Storage and Warehousing services during period from April-06 to Jan-07, March-07 & May-07 on which the service tax amounting to Rs. 1,01,367/- were not paid. It was also alleged that service tax of Rs. 1,74,884/- payable during a month was wrongly adjusted against excess payment during some other months. Accordingly Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellant for demand of service tax. 1.3 One group of SCNs dt. 19.10.10, 13.10.11,, 20.04.11 and 20.10.11 were adjudicated by Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi vide Order-In-Original No. 145-198/GB/2012 dt. 28.08.12 by which the total service tax demand of Rs. 79....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 21.01.10, the Commissioner (Appeals) by a common Order-In-Appeal No.64-65/S.Tax/2012 dt 29.02.12, dismissed the appeals. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal Nos. ST/766-767/2012 have been filed along with the stay application No. ST/Stay/1856-1857/2012. 2. Heard both the sides along with stay applications. 3. Sh. P.K.Sahu, Advocate & Sh. Prashant Shukla, Advocate, learned counsels for the Appellant, pleaded that GAM Charges are the appellants share of the expenses incurred by the holding company and other subsidiary companies for employing the persons, who manage the logistics requirements of certain global customers having operation in other countries and whose logistics requirements are being managed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Appeals) for subsequent period, that in view of this, no service tax is chargeable on the IPCL charges being paid by the appellant to their holding company, that no online information and data base and access retrieval service has been received by the appellant from their holding company, that as mentioned by the appellant in para 6.2 of their reply to the Show Cause Notice, these charges are for software annual maintenance contract, hardware annual maintenance contract, internet charges, bank guarantee charges etc. and hence service tax demand of Rs. 33,64,008/- on this account is not sustainable at all, that there is no short payment of service tax in respect of cargo handling service during April06, Jan07,March07 and May07, that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts share of the expenses incurred by their holding company on setting up and maintaining a Private Leased Circuit linking the holding company with all its subsidiary companies all over the world including the appellant, the Board vide its Circular dt. 19.12.11 has clarified that while this service is specifically covered by the Telecommunication service, it would not attract service tax, as the same has not been provided by Telegraph Authority, andas per section 65(105)(zzzx) read with section 65[109a(iv)], this service would be taxable only when the same has been provided by the Telegraph Authority. This circular also clarifies that this service cannot be classified as Business Support Service. The correctness or otherwise of the Board C....