2024 (1) TMI 725

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ous fertilizer and is providing services under various agreements executed with their principal (a foreign holding company). The respondent is demerged company from the firm M/s. Cargill India Pvt. Ltd and have taken the fertilizer part of the business of M/s. Cargill India Pvt Ltd including the continuing rights, title and liabilities. The respondent has shown considerable income in their books of accounts under the head of 'service income' such as distribution fees, agency fees, ocean freight saving etc.' On further inquiry it was known that M/s. Cargill India Pvt Ltd has a bulk discharge and handling facility at Rozy Pier, Jamnagar, Gujarat which allows for handling bigger size vessels and also facilitates speedier discharge of cargo the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y same issue in the respondent's own case has been considered by this Tribunal and the demand was set aside. The said decision was reported at 2015 (38) STR 577 (Tri. Ahmd). He submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal has also taken a note of the present impugned order in their decision. Accordingly, the issue is no more in dispute as settled in the above case. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that this Tribunal has already considered the very same issue in the respondent's own case and by giving proper reasoning dropped the demand. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:- "6. So far as leviability of Service Tax on receipts regarding saving in ocean freig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. This very bench in the case of Essar Project (India) Limited v. CCE & S.T., Rajkot [2014 (33) S.T.R. 696 (Tri.-Ahmd.)], after relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of UOI v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [1995 (76) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)], has held that a contract has to be interpreted separately as per the tenor of the contract. In the present proceedings there is no evidence that the contract were artificially splited to avoid service tax. As the services are separate and service recipient in future could avail the services of a service provider from a service provider other than the appellant, therefore, it can not be held that all the independent and separate contracts represent a common composite contract. Appeal of the app....