TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ases, the appellants have on purchase of the space on ocean going vessels from shipping companies and sold the same to exporters at a profit. However, in some cases the appellant have also incurred loss. The shipping companies raise invoices on the appellants for freight and the appellants raise their invoices/ debit notes on the exporters for the freight charged by appellants to the exporters. The difference between freight charged by shipping companies to the appellants and that charged by the appellants to the exporters, represent the profit or loss, as the case may be, made by the appellants in respect of the said activity of buying and selling the space on ocean going vessels. The case of the department is that the profit or excess fre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Int. Freight Services Pvt. Limited vs. CST - 2016 (9) TMI 585 - CESTAT MUMBAI (h) Greenwich Meridian Logistics (I) Pvt. Limited vs. CST, Mumbai - 2016 (43) STR 215 (Tri. Mumbai) (i) CST, New Delhi vs. Continental Carriers - 2017-TIOL-3964-CESTAT-DEL (j) Marinetrans India Pvt. Limited vs. CST, Hyderabad - 2019-TIOL-1260-CESTAT-HYD (k) DHL Lemuir Logistics Pvt. Limited vs. CST, Bangalore - 2010 (17) STR 266 (Tri. Bang.) He also submits that even as per the Board Circular B2/8/2004-TRU dated 10.09.2004 and Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17.09.2004 the issue has been clarified in favour of the assessee. 3. Shri T.K. Sikdar, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... On the second issue regarding the service tax liability of the respondent under BAS, we find that the impugned order examined the issue in detail. It was recorded that the income earned by the respondent to be considered as taxable under any service category, should be shown to be in lieu of provision of a particular service. Mere sale and purchase of cargo space and earning profit in the process is not a taxable activity under Finance Act, 1994. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the origi8nal authority. In this connection, we refer to the decision of the tribunal in Greenwich Meridian Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, Mumbai- 2016 (43) S.T.R. 215 (tri.-Mumbai). The tribunal examined similar set of fact and held that the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the request of the appellants for no penalty under section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1944 in respect if service tax demand against the air commission. In my view, when the appellant's activity of making arrangements for transportation of cargo by air was not clarified and was under dispute, the failure on their part is justified and I am inclined to waive the penalties imposed in respect of service tax demand against the air commission under section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994." Having held that there was a reasonable cause for non-payment of duty, we find it just to set aside the invocation of extended period of limitation also in the instant case. 5. Consequently dema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12. In the present case it was recorded that the respondent was already paying service tax on commission received from airlines/shipping lines under business auxiliary service since 10-9-2004. The original authority recorded that the show cause notice did not specify as to who is the client to whom the respondent is providing service. Original authority considered both the scenario, airline/shipping lines as a client or exporter/shipper as a client. In case the respondent is acting on behalf of airlines/shipping lines as client, it was held that they are covered by tax liability under BAS. Further, examining the issue the original authority viewed that commission amount is necessarily to be obtained out of transaction which is to be pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduced for ready reference as under:- "2. The facts of the case are that assessee M/s. Skylift Cargo (P) Ltd., [hereinafter referred to as assessees] are engaged in providing Cargo Handling Service, Clearing & Forwarding Service, Customs House Agent Service. They are also involved in the activities of booking domestic and international air cargo for various airlines for rendering the said bookings. Department took the view that the assessee were paying service 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 differen....