TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 959
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Appeal No.555/2016 (STA-I), dated 02.09.2016, whereby the Appellate Authority has rejected the appellant's appeals against the demand of service tax confirmed vide the Order in Original No.1 & 2 of 2015 dated 29.04.2015. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a registered service provider of Customs House Agency Services and other services. The appellant was issued a Statement of Demand (SOD) No.38 / 2012 dated 09.10.2012 for the period April 2011 to March 2012, and yet another SOD No.38/2014 dated 03.04.2014, for the period April 2012 to June 2012. Both the SODs have referred, inter-alia, to earlier Show Cause Notices covering the period from April 2009 to March 2011 and have also stated that the allegations made therein form p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the airline/shipping line and is not promoting the services of the airline / shipping line. The airline /shipping line is not the client of the appellant. It is further submitted that CBEC vide circular 197/7/2016 - Service Tax dated 12.08.2016 clarified that " a freight forwarder, when acting as a principal, will not be liable to pay service tax when the destination of the goods is from a place in India to a place outside India". It was further urged that in view of the clarification, it is clear that when freight forwarder, acting as a principal, will not be liable to pay service tax in such circumstances. 5. The Ld. counsel also stated that the issue is no more res integra and in respect of the Show Cause Notices issued for the prior ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riods. It is seen that the appellants had in an earlier proceedings assailed the OIO No.23277/2013 dated 28.02.2013 whereby the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed demands of service tax payable on similar allegations while adjudicating five SCNs, together spanning the period from 2006-07 to 2010-11. That challenge had culminated in a decision by this very bench vide its Final Order No.40197/2025 dated 12.02.2025, in the case of M/s. International Clearing & Shipping Agency v Commissioner of GST & CE, Chennai North Commissionerate, 2025 (2) TMI 615-CESTAT CHENNAI, whereby the matter was decided in the appellant's favour. Relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced below: "16. The Tribunal has, in a number of similar de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue cannot sustain a demand under a ground not raised in the SCN and such confirmation of demand on a category of service different from that proposed in the SCN would tantamount to travelling beyond the show cause notice. Thus, we hold that in any event, the finding of the adjudicating authority that rebate and brokerage received by the appellants are liable to be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service for the period 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, and the consequent confirmation of demand, is liable to be set aside as such a finding travel beyond the proposals in the SCN. 18. We also find substance in the appellants' contention that neither the SCN nor the impugned Order in Original has stated under which limb of Business Auxiliar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s providing a particular taxable service under section 65(105). Determination of taxability on the basis of accounting entries in the P & L account and assessing it to tax on this count, is alien to the Finance Act 1994. The amounts evidenced as received towards a taxable service before, during or after providing of such service can tantamount to consideration for the said taxable service. 20. It is also seen that for similar issues the Department has earlier issued SCNs and the matter upon reaching this Tribunal had been decided in favour of the Appellant and therefore the ingredients to invoke the extended period was absent. There is no evidence let in of any positive act of suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade....