TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demand of Service Tax in Order-in-Appeal No. 585/2016 dated 26.09.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I), Chennai. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Appellants are registered service providers for rendering taxable services, namely Cargo Handling Service, Goods Transport Service, and Business Auxiliary Service. The Appellants were also engaged in the business of international freight forwarding and related services. 3. During the course of audit, the Department observed that the Appellants were allegedly promoting and marketing the services of freight forwarders in different countries by offering such services to importers and exporters. For such activities, the Appellants were stated to have received brok....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....country to another, with responsibility for the cargo continuing until delivery at the final destination. 8. He further submitted that, for this purpose, the Appellants had worked jointly with freight forwarders in other countries, and pursuant to agreements entered into with such counterparts, the profit earned or loss incurred in each transaction was shared between them. In such a business model, it was argued, there is no distinct service provider service recipient relationship, as the transportation of goods is carried out jointly from the point of origin to the destination. Accordingly, it was contended that no service tax demand can be sustained on the profit so shared with overseas freight forwarders. Then he has drawn our attenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tuation, it gains profits. This activity is a business in itself on account of the appellant and cannot be called a service at all. Neither can the profit earned from such business be termed consideration for service. Respectfully following Satkar Logistics, Nilja Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Surya Shipping and ITC Freight Services, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax. 6.1 The Tribunal in an earlier decision the case of M/s Greenwich Meridian Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd., v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai 2016 (4) TMI-547CESTAT MUMBAI held as follows: 12. The appellant takes responsibility for safety of goods and issues a document of title which is a multi-modal bill of lading and commits to delivery at t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of the appellant and, with the space so purchased being allocable only by the appellant, the shipping line fails in description as client whose services are promoted or marketed. 14. We, therefore, find no justification for sustaining of the demand and, accordingly, set aside the impugned order. Demands, with interest thereon, and penalties in both orders are set aside. Cross-objections filed by the department are also disposed of." 9. He further placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Leaap International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2018 (6) TMI 723 CESTAT, Chennai], wherein the Tribunal, relying upon the decision in M/s. Greenwich Meridian Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o concept of service provider and service receiver and the movement of goods is carried out jointly from the origin to the destination. As such there could not be a demand of service tax on such profit shared with their counterparts. In support of this, the appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi [(2024) 19 CENTAX 264 (Tri-Del)), which is extracted in para 8 supra which is decided in favour of the appellant. 13. It is seen that this is a continuing SCN and the Order of the Commissioner confirms the demand. Previous Order on the earlier SCN has been set aside by this Tribunal. It is also seen that the Appellants have relied on other decisions also on the iss....