AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 'Agency Commission' received by them and Rs. 9,36,466/- on the 'Brokerage Commission' received by them. The show-cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No.01/2006 dated 23.1.2006 by Commissioner covering the various demands. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred an appeal to this Bench. The Bench vide Final Order No.612/2007 dated 15.5.2007 in ST/53/2006 have remanded the case back to Commissioner opining that Airline Agency Commission has come under the service category of 'Business Auxiliary Services', the submission of appellants on 'Brokerage Commission' were not examined; adjudicating authority has not considered the jurisdiction and adjudicated issue in respect of their branches in different places in India. V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have amended the registration of M/s. UPS Jet Air Express Pvt. Ltd. to include 'Custom House Agent' services. 2.1 Coming to the Brokerage Service alleged to have been rendered by them falling under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service', they submitted that it is clear from the definition of the 'Business Auxiliary Service' under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 that service tax under Business Auxiliary Service is leviable on any service in relation to promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client; or promotion or marketing of service provided by the client; or any customer care service provided on behalf of the client. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery fact that the original service tax demand was reduced by the Commissioner from Rs. 84,57,950/- to Rs. 3,19,691/- goes to prove that the issue was ambiguous. Under such circumstances, suppression of facts cannot be alleged and extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Moreover, though the show-cause notice does not invoke proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act, the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand for extended period traversing beyond the scope of show-cause notice. They relied upon the following judgments: CCE vs. HMM Ltd.: 1995 (76) ELT 497 (SC) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune: 2007 (211) ELT 513 (SC) 2.3 They also submitted that as there was reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax, penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ming to the first issue, we find that the appellants vide letter dated 29.7.2018 have submitted to the learned Commissioner that they also act as sub-agents to their customers. One such customer was M/s. UPS Jet Air Express Pvt. Ltd. On completion of the job, they will raise bill on M/s. UPS Jet Air Express Pvt. Ltd. who in turn will raise a consolidated bill on the importer/exporter. On receipt of payment from the respective customers, service tax will be paid by M/s. UPS Jet Air Express Pvt. Ltd. and from that amount on which service tax is paid M/s. UPS Jet Air Express Pvt. Ltd. would settle the bill of the appellants. Since service tax has already been paid on the amount received by the appellants, they are not liable to service tax. We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng on the issue. We find that in terms of the Circular issued by the CBEC, subcontractors are liable to pay service tax whether or not the services are provided by a person in his capacity as a subcontractor and whether or not such services are used as input services. The Department's case in the instant issue is not about the non-payment of service tax on the services rendered by the appellants as a subcontractor but the allegation is on the basis of only the 'Agency Commission' received by them. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the appellants are not required to pay service tax on the 'Agency Commission' received by them from M/s. UPS Jet Air Express Pvt. Ltd. 4.2 Coming to the issue of commission received from airlines/shipping ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of DHL Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (6) GSTL 85 (Tri.-Mumbai) has also held that: "4.3. The next issue relates to the income under the head of airline commission and airline incentive sought to be text under BAS. It is seen that the said income is generated during the course of booking of bulk cargo by the appellant with the airline. The appellant have received the incentive and commission from the airline. The appellants are engaged in buying and selling of space in the airline and depending on the volume of the space bought by the appellant from the airlines they received the commission/incentive. The appellants are not buying and selling space on the airline on behalf of their client but on their own behalf. To consider t....