The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench in Ahmedabad, has partly allowed an appeal filed by Intermark Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., setting aside service tax demands for the extended period and related penalties.
The bench of Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) and Shri Ramesh Nair (Technical Member) has observed that invocation of extended period in such matters was unsustainable. Additionally, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Nizam Sugar case (2006), the Tribunal held that the Revenue could not invoke suppression in successive show cause notices on the same issue.
The case pertained to a service tax demand of Rs. 4.48 lakh on brokerage earnings of ₹36.26 lakh received during April 2013 to March 2014. The Department had initially invoked extended period provisions under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, and imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 77. The Commissioner (Appeals) had earlier upheld the original adjudicating order, rejecting the appellant’s contentions regarding pure agent status and denial of cum-tax benefit under Section 67(2).
While setting aside the extended period demand and associated penalties, the Tribunal upheld the tax demand and interest for the normal period, concluding that such liability remains sustainable under law.
The appeal was accordingly allowed in part, offering partial relief to Intermark Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Case Details
Case Title: Intermark Shipping Agencies Pvt Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kutch
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 11128 Of 2017-SM
Date: 21.07.2025
Counsel For Appellant: R. Subramanya
Counsel For Respondent: Himanshu P Shrimali
Read More: Casinos Tell SC: GST on Total Bets is Confiscatory, Not Based on Actual Earnings
- India-UK Sign Landmark FTA Aimed at Boosting Bilateral Trade by £25.5 Billion by 2040 - July 25, 2025
- Sitharaman Orders Swift Withdrawal of Low-Value Tax Appeals to Cut Litigation Load - July 25, 2025
- ED Raids Anil Ambani-Linked Firms Over Rs. 3,000 Cr Yes Bank Loan Fraud; SBI Labels Him ‘Fraud’ Account Holder - July 24, 2025
