Professional Couriers Versus CGST & CE Chennai North (Vice Versa)
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 36 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (26) G. S. T. L. 207 (Tri. – Chennai)
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 26-9-2018
ST\/57\/2012, ST\/54\/2012 – 42489-42490\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nFor the Assessee : Shri T. Ramesh, Advocate
\nFor the Revenue : Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR)
\nORDER
\nPER BENCH
\nM\/s.The Professional Couriers (TPC) is an assessee engaged in courier activity and are registered with service tax department under the category of 'Courier Services'. Pursuant to investigation conducted by DGCEI, it emerged from the balance sheet that appellants were collecting certain charges as 'crossing over charges', raised on their sub-franchisee agencies located in other parts of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of enabling further movement of documents, which originated from their sub-franchisees' end. It appea<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Penalties imposed under Section 77 & 78 were also set aside by the said authority. Aggrieved by the upholding of the demand under BSS, the assessee has filed Appeal ST\/57\/2012. The department has also filed an appeal against setting aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) of the demand under BAS for the period prior to 1.5.2006 as also against setting aside of penalties under Section 77 & 78 of Finance Act and have filed Appeal ST\/54\/2012. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d period there was a Board circular dated 01.11.1996 in operation, which clarified that no Service Tax can be demanded from the co-loader. In the said Final Order, this Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to refer to the Board Circular dated 01.11.1996. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n . = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n umbrella. In other words, all these outlets will function as defacto TPC offices. There is no allegation that the documents booked by TPC Madurai are not booked in the name of TPC but in the name of some other courier agency. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Professional Couriers Versus CGST & CE Chennai North (Vice Versa)Service Tax2018 (10) TMI 36 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (26) G. S. T. L. 207 (Tri. – Chennai)CESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 26-9-2018ST\/57\/2012, ST\/54\/2012 – 42489-42490\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Assessee : Shri T. Ramesh, … Continue reading “Professional Couriers Versus CGST & CE Chennai North (Vice Versa)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14195","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14195","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14195"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14195\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14195"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14195"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14195"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. When the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the assessee, Ld. Advocate Shri T. Ramesh made oral and written submissions which can be broadly summarized as under :
\n i) As regards the assessee's Appeal, it is submitted that the demand confirmed under Business Supportive Service is also not sustainable. The activity involved in the present case is continuous service of Courier by single network. All the transactions are taking place only in the name TPC. In the circumstances, there is no service rendered to any third party and hence, there is no<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n iv) The demand is barred by Limitation and Imposition of penalty under Section 78 is not sustainable.
\n v) As regards the submissions in Department's Appeal, the very same service cannot fall under two different heading. Further, the activity involved in the present case in any case cannot be brought under any of the Service Tax provisions.
\n3. On the other hand, on behalf of the department, Ld. A.R Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy submits that there is no bar for the same activity performed by the appellant to fall under BAS prior to 1.5.2006 and BSS subsequent to that date. He submits that service category of BSS was carved out of BAS only. He placed reliance on the Tribunal decision in DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. CCE & ST Bangalore – 2012 (26) STR<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5.1 One of the contentions of the Ld. Advocate is that activity of assessee is similar to co-loader and hence Board's circular dt. 01.11.96, which clarified that no service tax can be demanded from the co-loader will very much be applicable to their case. We are however unable to appreciate this argument. The Board's circular sought to cover cases where one courier agency utilizes services of another company for in-transit movement of documents etc. from one point to another; such co-loaders undertake to transport documents, goods etc. on behalf of courier agency and charge courier agency for such services. The facts on record shows that an assessee or their franchisee units are definitely not 'co-loaders' as envisaged in the Board's circular. Hence this argument does not carry merit.
\n5.2 However, we do find merit in the alternate argument of the Ld. Advocate that activity involved in the present case is a continuous service of courier by single network and the transaction is betwe<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nViewed in this light, it is but evident that the various franchisees spread over Tamil Nadu and the assessees based in Chennai, are operating in the hub-and-spoke business model. The documents from each of these TPC franchisees may be sent to the TPC hub at Chennai wherefrom they will be further sent onwards to various other TPC hubs in other parts of the country for further distribution. This being the case, crossing over charges are being collected only for the intra-movement of courier packages within the hub-and- spoke arrangement, namely with the TPC network in Tamil Nadu. We therefore find that in the present case the impugned services within the TPC network is nothing but a continuation or culmination of courier services only. It then cannot be alleged tha<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n