AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1021
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvices'. Based on the specific intelligence about appellant that they are not paying service tax on logistic charges collected separately in their invoices/ Bills from their customers that an investigation was conducted and appellant's premises were searched on 31.10.201. Several documents were recovered, statements of all concerned were recorded. It was observed that the logistic charges amounting to Rs.1,72,08,800/- Rs.2,66,09,500/- Rs.3,44,61,500/- Rs.54,17,500/- and Rs.47,02,500/- during the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013, 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014, 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015 to 31.05.2015 and 01.06.2015 to 10.08.2015 respectively were received by the appellant. The department formed an opinion that the said amount is received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the appellant and Shri Shri Shashank Yadav, learned Authorised Representative of the Department. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the demand has been confirmed based on two issues. (i) The amount of logistic charges is alleged to be an amount of consideration for rendering taxable services, however, the issue stand settled by this Tribunal in the case of Sujeet Automtive Pvt Ltd. vs. CCGST, Central Excise, Bhopal reported in 2024(8)TMI 204 (CESTAT-Del.) wherein the amount of logistic charges is held to be amount includable in the value received for sale of cars. (ii) The second issue is the demand of service tax under reverse charge mechanism for receiving the Security Services. It is me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een from that angle also the demand for the overlapping and for the subsequent period cannot be confirmed based on the allegations of suppression of facts. 8. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decision: (a) M/s. Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE [2006(197) ELT 465(SC)] (b) Ms. KBS Enterprise vs. CCE [2023(4) TMI 169-CESTAT.ND] With these submissions, learned counsel has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and for the appeal to be allowed. 9. While rebutting these submissions, learned departmental representative has fairly conceded about the decision in the case of Surjeet Auto (Supra) vis-à-vis, the demand of service tax on logistics charges. 10. With respect to the second issue the find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant was charging extra for the service of loading, unloading, upkeep and washing etc., of the car sold to the customer. It has been alleged by the department that the activity of logistic/handling in lieu of a consideration constituted service as envisaged in clause 44 of Section 65(B) of Finance Act, 1994 and therefore, is liable for levy service tax. The adjudicating authority has held that providing logistics services by the car dealer to the customer is an activity which constituted service as defined under sub-section 44 of the section 65(B) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the instant case, it is noted that he appellant, as authorised dealer of cars, collected logistic charges/handling charges from their customers on account of the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied that such pre-sale charges are not leviable to service tax, and the logistics/handling activities are all pre-sale activities and hence are not leviable to service tax." 12. In the light of the above observations in already decided matters involving the same issue as of the present appeal, we do not find any reason in the present appeal to differ from these findings. Therefore, we hold that the demand for the period in question with respect to the logistic charges it is liable to be set aside. 13. Issue no.(ii): Demand of service tax to be paid by appellant, under reverse charge mechanism, for receiving the security services. 14. It is observed that the demand has been confirmed for want of the evidence. However, we peruse from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mechanism in terms of Notification no.30/2012 dated 20.06.2012. But the fact remains is that 100% tax stands paid by the appellant the service recipient, however, deposited by the provider of the service. In this circumstances, confirmation of demand amount to double taxation. Article 265 of Constitution of India prohibits Government to collect the amount which is no more due. Resultantly, the demand on this aspect not sustainable is liable to be set aside. 16. Coming to the plea of limitation as raised by the appellant, we observe that in the present appeal, the show cause notice dated 28.02.2018 has proposed the demand of service tax for the period from 01.07.2012 to 11.08.2015. The normal period for issuance of show cause notice at th....