TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. AAHFA3182AST001 and engaged in providing 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services'. 2.2 During the audit of the records of the appellant for the period 2012-13 to 2016-17, it was observed that apart from providing C & F Agent Service, the appellant also arranged the service of transportation to the principal companies and received consideration for the same. They did not discharged service tax on this amount. The expenses incurred by the appellant for providing these services was less than the consideration received. Resulting in short payment of service tax as indicated in the table (table as per the appeal memo) below:- F.Y. Period of F.Y Reimbursement of Freight From the Principal Actual Freight Paid Expense for their own truck Difference Rate of Service Tax Service Tax payable 2012-13 Oct. 2012 to March 2013 27933927 18674189 3007016 6252722 12.36% 772836 2013-14 April 2013 to March 2014 57001806 35588478 3439352 17973976 12.36% 2221583 2014-15 April 2014 to March 2015 62128055 36961479 3530042 21636534 12.36% 2674276 2015-16 01.04.2015 to 31.05.2015 1361338 8128136 664273 4808929 12.36% 594384 01.06.2015 to 14.11.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Complex, Lasudia Mori, Dewas Naka, Indore -452001(Μ.Ρ.). (ii) I order for recovery of interest at the applicable rates on the amount of Service Tax (including Cess) confirmed in (i) above under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iii) I do not impose penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 upon the Noticee. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 upon the Noticee for failure to furnish the correct Returns. (v) 1 impose penalty of Rs. 65,15,960/- (Rs. Sixty Five Lakh Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Only) under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, if such service tax and the interest payable thereon is paid Within thirty days from the date of communication of this order, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by the assessee shall be twenty-five per cent of amount of service tax and confirmed at (i) above, in terms of second proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; however, the benefit of reduced penalty shall be available only if the amount of penalties have also been paid with other dues within the period of said thirty days. 48 The above referred Show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charges recovered by the Appellant will form part of remuneration of C & F Agent service. However, the show cause notice as well as the adjudicating authority is silent as to how rates for both services are decided in the said agreement. It has not been mentioned in the show cause notice as well as the impugned adjudication order that the rates are agreed upon in lump sum for both activities together. Whereas, it is admitted fact that the charges for transportation of goods are recovered by the Appellant No.1 by issuing separate invoices. So I find that it is not case of composite contract for provision of both the services wherein the charges are paid in lump sum for both services. 10.3 Here I also find that present case doesn't fall in the category of reimbursement of transportation expenses by the Principal to the C & F Agent because the Appellant No.1 has not arranged the transport of goods on behalf of their Principal but has actually undertaken the transportation of goods from the godown to the dealers/wholesalers by using their own trucks or hiring the trucks of others and had issued consignment notes in each case. The copies of consignment notes have been produced b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... because these two services cannot be considered as composite service for clubbing their taxable value for assessment purpose. Further, I also find that in present case, since the contract rates for providing transportation service are separately decided which are other than the charges agreed upon for C & F agent service and also charged separately, this transaction between the Appellant No.1 and their service receiver client is on Principal to Principal basis. So the Appellant No.1, while providing the transportation service, does not satisfy the condition of working as Agent of their Principal to fall under the service category of C& F Agent services. Therefore, I find that transportation service will not be covered as part of the service of C&F Agent service. 4.3 From the facts as reproduced above, it is evident that the appellant is engaged in providing two services, namely, C & F Services and GTA Services. Both services though provided under the same contract are indicated separately with separate charges for each. In respect of GTA Services provided, the service tax on the value of such services was to be paid by the recipient of the services on the reverse charge basis. ....