TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se appeals are filed by M/s. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., appellant as well as the Revenue against respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax/ Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), which are tabulated below; Appeal No. Period Impugned Order No./date Service tax confirmed Penalty ST/778/2010 01/07/2006 to 08/10/2009 OIO No.8/2010 dt. 11/02/2010 Rs.3,23,70,783/- Rs.3,23,70,783/- ST/27073/2013 October 2009 to March 2010 OIA No.96 & 97/2013 dt. 01/04/2013 Appellant's appeal allowed and OIO was set aside. ST/27072/2013 April 2010 to March 2011 -do- Appellant's appeal allowed and OIO was set aside ST/21710/2014 April 2011 to March 2012 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds have been confirmed with interest and penalty mentioned as above, hence the appeal is filed before this Tribunal. 2.2. Further, for the period from October 2009 to March 2010 (Appeal No.ST/27073/2013) and from April 2010 to March 2011 (Appeal No.ST/27072/2013), though the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, on appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeals of the appellant; hence the Revenue is in appeal. 3. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted as follows:- i. The appellants are engaged in providing domestic and international courier service. In case of domestic delivery service both consignor or consignee are situated in India, whereas in case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eign companies, for the services delivered outside India, from the total consideration received; therefore, no separate service tax be leviable on the amount paid to overseas service providers / co-loaders as the amount paid to said foreign companies had already suffered service tax in India. iv. The present orders are contrary to Board Circular F.No.341/43/96 TRU dt. 31/10/1996, wherein it is clarified that once the service tax paid by the courier agency for in-transit movement of the documents from one point to another through co-loaders, the onward transit services of the same consignment provided by such co-loaders are not chargeable to service tax. v. The foreign companies are courier companies and thus the services r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....020]. They have also submitted that the jurisdictional Service Tax authority in Bangalore have consistently decided the issue in favour of the appellant by dropping the demand of service tax under Section 66A under the similar circumstances, wherein the show-cause notice proposed to classify the services rendered by foreign service providers under "Business Support Services". In support they have referred to the orders passed by the concerned Commissionerates. viii. Further, they have submitted that the said orders have not been appealed by the Department. Hence, the Department is precluded from arguing contrary to the said orders. In support, they have placed reliance in the case of Marsons Fan Industries Vs. CCE [2008(225) ELT 33....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rused records. 6. The short question involved in the present appeals for determination is: Whether the amount paid by the appellant to the overseas joint-venture companies in delivering the consignments of consignors in India to consignees situated outside India is leviable to service tax under "Business Support Service" for the period 07/2006 to 09/2013. 7. Undisputed facts are that the appellant are engaged in rendering courier service; accordingly registered with the Service Tax Department. They are providing both domestic and international courier services. For international courier service, the amount collected from the customers in India for delivery of the parcels at various international destinations, they paid service tax on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST [2018-TIOL-2710-CESTAT-MAD] and TNT India Limited Vs. Commissioner LTU [Final Order No.20189/2020 dt. 17/02/2020 passed by CESTAT, Bangalore]. Further they have submitted that in subsequent proceedings, the adjudicating authority taking note of the judgments passed by the Tribunal in various cases held that the services received by the appellant from the joint-venture companies, is in the nature of a service provided by co-loader; hence do not fall under the taxable category of Business Support Service. Consequently, the proceedings have been dropped against the appellant. In support, they referred to Order-in-Original No. BLR-LTUNT-000-ADC-14/2017 dated 21.03.2017, Order-in-Original No.BLR-LTUNT-000-ADC/12/2017 dated 13.03.2017. 10. ....