2019 (3) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and were paying service tax under the category of "Clearing & Forwarding Agency Services" on the commission received by them. During the course of their business, appellant being owner of the Warehouse was also doubling up as a person who has leased out his properties to various clients during the period April 2003 to May 2007 and agreements were entered into for receiving of rent from some of the principals as reimbursement of rent while with some of the people it was purely rental income and no C&F services were provided. Revenue authorities issued a show cause notice to demand the service tax liability. The adjudicating authority, after considering the factual position, dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice. The Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of the rent and cannot be included in the value of the services rendered. It is his submission that the value of taxable services rendered by C&F agent continues to remain as a gross of remuneration or commission paid to such agency by principal or client, is the Board's Circular dated 23.08.1999. Further, he would rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nandini Warehousing Corporation [2007(8)S.T.R. 511 (Tri.-Bang.)] and also submits that this has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as reported at [2015(39) S.T.R. J365 (Kar.), he would also gainfully refer to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CST Chennai vs. Sangamitra Services Agency [2014(33)S.T.R. 137 (Mad.)] wherein the issue was he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xable under C&F services for which appellant is registered with the authorities. During the period April 2003 to May 2007, appellant had rendered C&F services is not disputed, he being the owner of the land, constructed various warehouses which were given on rent. Appellant has submitted and undisputed by the lower authorities that payment of Rs. 7,54,153/- in respect of four agreements were on the amount received by the appellant as pure rent. In this, it would mean that appellant had constructed godowns and rented them out to various institutions/companies to stored their goods. He only received the rent from such companies and was not engaged in C&F services for such clients. In our view, the amount of tax of Rs. 7,54,153/- cannot be fix....