TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of the services rendered as CHA and C&F agent. Interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act was demanded. Penalties were proposed under Sections 76, 77 & 78 ibid. The adjudicating authority confirmed an amount of Rs. 3,96,51,830/- in respect of CHA services. As regards C&F agent services, he demanded a sum of Rs. 28,64,280/-. The extended period was invoked. The following penalties were imposed. (a) Rs. 200/- per day under Section 76; (b) Rs. 1000/- under Section 77; (c) A penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 78 The interest under Section 75 was also demanded. The appellants are highly aggrieved over the impugned order. 3. Shri C. Natarajan, learned Sr. Advocate Counsel along with Ms. Sindhu, learned Advocate appear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments are required, then the same could have been sought in course of hearing. (iii) The appellants explained in detail the nature of various recoveries such as CCX Fees, Break Bulk fees, Sea Freight/Airline commission, Airline incentive, Freight Rebate, Profit share etc. with reasons as to why they are not connected with the CHA services. The Adjudicating Authority brushed aside the submission by only stating that the appellants failed to produce evidence. He has not given a single reason as to why these recoveries are taxable under the CHA services. The appellants have brought on record erroneous calculation resulting in excess demand of Service Tax of Rs. 1,55,84,283/-in respect of CHA services due to inclusion of the quantum of deman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Board's Circular dated June 6, 1997 in the light of the following judicial decisions (a) Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v. CCE [1997 (94) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.)] (b) Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CCE [1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.)] (c) Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin [2003 (160) E.L.T. 836] (d) HPL Chemicals v. CCE, Chandigarh [2003 (162) E.L.T. 357] (e) Trans peck Industry Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda [2003 (162) E.L.T. 1095] (vi) In respect of C & F agent services, the appellants have discharged the service tax liability on the management and the Adjudicating Authority has raised the demand on the rental income and distribution income. With regard to rental income the appellants had discharged the service tax liability on April 2006 for Rs. 3,89,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....within the scope of CHA services (i) CCX Fees (ii) Expense Reimbursement billing (iii) Break Bulk Fees (iv) Sea Freight/Airline Commission (v) Airline Incentive (vi) Freight rebate (Air/Sea/Consol) (vii) Profit share from origin (viii) Unallocated Income (ix) System Currency Adjustment Factor Thus the order is not a speaking order and bad in law. It is also seen that he appellants are receiving reimbursement from their clients for various expenses incurred on their behalf. The Department has sought to levy service tax n these receipts. In our view, the Order-in-Original suffers from these defects. In the guise of serving the Revenue, the Adjudicating Authority should not attempt to confirm the demand raised in ....