TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellant Shri R. Subramanian, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellants are providing C&F agency service to M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (HUL) and are registered with the Service Tax Department. Show cause notice was issued to them proposing demand of service tax of Rs. 1,11,05,181/- on the ground that they did not include loading and unloading charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied by contracts as well as records and are classifiable as separate services. Loading, unloading and halting charges are part of the GTA service on which the appellant is eligible for 75% abatement. The appellant have furnished remittance as proof of service tax paid on the GTA service which is made by HUL. In the consignment note, it is specifically mentioned that the service tax will be dischar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice tax by including loading and unloading charges and halting charges in the total value of taxable services, they are not eligible for abatement of such amounts also. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The main issue for consideration is whether the service rendered by the appellant is a composite service under C&F Agency Service or whether these are separate services so as to levy service tax separatel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice into separate contract. When the appellant has contracted with M/s. HUL for providing GTA service, the department cannot club the services together and apply section 65A alleging that these are composite services. The appellant has also produced letter dated 12.9.2008 issued by M/s. HUL to the appellant wherein it is stated that they are discharging service tax on transport cost incurred by ....