TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lligence that appellants are not paying service tax on various charges like brokerage, discount, commission, incentive etc. investigations were conducted which culminated into issuance of show cause notice dated 11.6.2007. After adjudication the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and also imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. Consultants Shri D.Arvind assisted by Shri Adhitya Srinivasan argued the matter. It is submitted that the appellant is discharging service tax on the commission paid to them by airlines for booking cargo space. In terms of the tripartite agreement entered int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... c. DHL Lemuir Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane I 2016-TIOL-1455-CESTAT-MUM 3. Ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal had remanded the matter and thereafter the Commissioner has passed the impugned order, wherein the demand has been confirmed. In the show cause notice, the demand of service tax was made on the entire amount received from airlines whereas after denovo adjudication only that part of the amount collected from the exporters has been subjected to levy of service tax. He argued that the facts in the case of Skylift Cargo (supra) as well as other decisions relied by the consultant are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax under Business Auxiliary Service only on the commission amount without considering the incentive amount. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the assessee by way of issue of show-cause notices. These proceedings culminated in confirmation of demands of differential service tax liability of Rs. 19,98,332/- and Rs. 93,11,332/- respectively with interest liability thereon. Penalties, which were upheld by the impugned orders in respect of appeal nos.ST/00026/2008 and ST/20005/2009. Aggrieved, assessees are before this forum. 3. When the matter came up for hearing learned consultant Shri D. Aravind made oral and written submissions, which can be summarised as follows:- (a) During the course of freight forwardin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....capacity of a transporter/principal, rendering service to exporters. (f) Freight Forwarder rendering service as a principal has been recognised by CBEC in Education Guide as well as in their Circular of August 2016. (g) The matter is no longer res integra and have been held in their favour, vide a number of decisions, namely:- (i) Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi Vs M/s. Karam Freight Movers reported in 2017 (4) G.S.T.L.215 (Tri.Del.). (ii) DHL Lemuir Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-1 reported in 2016-TIOL-1455-CESTAT-MUM. (iii) Phoenix International Freight Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II reported in 2016-TIOL-2353-CESTAT-MUM. ....