2026 (3) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service tax. 2. The appellant is engaged in providing taxable service of 'Clearing & Forwarding Agents' and 'Goods Transport Agency' services under a Single Agreement with respective recipients (Goods Corporates), separately specifying remuneration for Clearing & Forwarding and transportation. The Department proceeded on the footing that the agreements entered between the appellant and their principals are in composite agreement for "Clearing & Forwarding Agents", which included all the activities including transportation of goods and hence classifiable under "Clearing & Forwarding Services" in view of Section 65A(2)(bc). The show cause notice was issued alleging that the appellant was providing "Clearing & Forwarding Services" but did ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Therefore, the 'Clearing & Forwarding Agent's Service' cannot encompass any other service including the services of transportation of goods by GTA service. 4.5 Madurai Trade Notice No.87/97 based upon CBEC Circular F. No. B.43/7/1997 TRU dated 11.7.1997 clarified that 'C&F Agents' responsibilities are limited to arranging dispatches as per the principal's directions, not transportation, consideration for which, therefore, is not includible in 'C & F Agents' Service' 4.6. Since 'C & F Agents' Service' does not include transportation, therefore, both the services cannot be termed 'composite' or 'bundled' service so as to club the consideration for the levy of service tax. 5. Learned Counsel has also referred t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the issue stands covered by the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel. 8. The issue whether transportation charges recovered by 'Clearing & Forwarding Agent' needs to be included in the assessable value or not has been settled in various decisions as submitted by the appellant. We may refer to one of the recent decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Goods, Service Tax and Central Excise, Indore Vs. Awasthi Brother-2025 (8) TMI 169 -CESTAT-New Delhi, where it was observed 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 S....