Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Tnt India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 14 August, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 21333 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/21452/2014 in ST/21276/2014-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/21276/2014-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 10/2013-14 dated 09/12/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (ADJUDICATION), BANGALORE.] TNT India Pvt. Ltd No.16/3, Adarsh Yelavarthy Centre, Cambridge Road, Ulsoor BANGALORE - 560008 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,SERVICE TAX AND CUSTOMS Bangalore (Adjudication) C.R BUILDING,P.B NO.5400, QUEEN'S ROAD BANGALORE - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. N. Anand, Advocate RAVI SHANKAR & CHANDER KUMAR, ADVOCATES 504,4TH FLOOR, OXFORD TOWERS, NO.139, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI, BANGALORE - 560008 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 14/08/2014 Date of Decision: 14/08/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY The appellant is engaged in providing courier services and inter alia is also engaged in providing international transport/freight services wherein the appellant undertakes transportation or transshipment of commercial cargo through air, which is generally known in the trade as international freight service. Appellant is paying service tax in respect of courier service rendered by them under courier agency service. There is no dispute on this aspect. According to the appellant, the definition of courier agency service envisages door-to-door transportation of time-sensitive documents, goods or articles. The appellant has not been paying service tax in respect of international transportation or freight services on the ground that this merely involves transportation of goods or articles and does not involve any kind of time-sensitive documents or goods and it is a mere transportation service. Contrary view has been taken and proceedings have been in confirmation of demand for service tax of Rs.6,34,58,066/- with interest for the period from April 2011 to March 2012. Penalties have also been imposed.
2. Learned counsel presented detailed arguments as to why the show-cause notice could not have been issued at all by the Revenue and further, he also submitted details as to why the services provided by them is not covered by courier agency service. However, after hearing the learned counsel for some time and going through the records, we found that as submitted by the learned counsel, this Tribunal had considered the very same issue and had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication vide Final Order No.25709/2013 dated 25.7.2013. The learned counsel also compared the order passed which was under consideration by the Tribunal resulting in Final Order referred to above and the present one and as in the case of earlier order in this case also, the Commissioner has not dealt with the most important point viz., what exactly is the meaning of time-sensitive documents, goods, etc., for the purpose of definition. Since the present order was passed after the personal hearing held in May 2013, apparently the fact that the Tribunal had passed a Final Order remanding the matter was not brought to his notice when the order-in-original was issued in December 2013.
3. The discussion above would show that since both the orders are similar to each other and after considering one of the two, the matter has been remanded, it is necessary for us to follow the precedent decision cited above. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication as per the directions contained in the earlier order referred to above.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 3