2024 (4) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he order in original 31.03.2017 passed by the Joint Commissioner and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant is registered with service tax department and has provided taxable services and has been paying service tax under the categories of "goods transport agency" service and "storage and warehouse" service. It has also been availing the benefit of the CENVAT credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 CCR. It is a limited company promoted by Shri Mohan Lal Kotwani who also has three other businesses in the name of Madhur Courier Services, Madhur Communications, Damru Express which were rendering courier agency services. The appellant declared itself to be a provider of "cargo handling services" to the income tax departm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sence a courier service. 4. A show cause notice dated 09.08.2016 was issued to the appellant covering the period from October, 2010 to March, 2015 alleging that the appellant had misclassified its taxable service as "goods transport service" which is actually "courier service" and evaded payment of service tax of Rs. 53,92,677/- which was proposed to be recovered along with interest and impose penalty. The reasons for invoking extended period of limitation and imposing penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 recorded in paragraph 15 of the show cause notice is as follows: " 15. The noticee has indulged in deliberate misclassification of the taxable service to claim abatement which otherwise is not available to them and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant was using the tracking facility provided by a sister company M/s Madhur Express Private Limited should not make its service as it courier service; (v) The appellant has 12 short haulage motor vehicles TATA 407/709 which are registered as commercial vehicles; (vi) The appellant issues booking-slips/consignment notes and if the consignment has a full truck load it also mentions its vehicle number. Otherwise, the appellant mentions other details such as consignor, consignee, name and quantity of the goods number of packages etc., (vii) The declaration which it obtains from every client that consignment does not contain personal mail, currency notes, jewellery, contraband etc., does not establish that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In this factual matrix, we find that the services rendered by the appellant have all the essential characteristics of courier service and not of "goods transport agency service". 13. However, we also find that the appellant could have entertained a belief that they were classifiable under the "goods transport agency service" and, accordingly, classified its service, paid service tax and filed returns. Classification of the service is a part of a self-assessment by the appellant. The self-assessment is subject to scrutiny and if necessary best judgment assessment under section 72 by the officer and the appellant had been filing returns. It is the responsibility of the officer to scrutinize them. Wherever the appellant had not filed retur....