JUDGMENT
Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty, I take up the appeals itself with the consent of both sides. All the five appeals are being taken up as they arise out of a common impugned Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals),
2. The appellant company is a courier agent and liable to pay Services Tax on the services provided by them to its customers. The short point required to be decided in the present appeals is as to whether the services provided to the Diplomatic Mission and the international organisations and the services between the two agencies are exempted from Service Tax or not. As regards the first issue, the Commissioner (Appeals) has admitted on the law point that the Notification No. 44/98-ST and 45/98-ST both dated 22.1.98, exempt the services rendered by a courier company to the specified Diplomatic Missions and to UN or international organisations respectively, but has denied the benefit to the applicants/appellants on the ground that they have not provided any clarification, reason or evidence in this regard. The appellants’ contention represented through its advocate, Shri B. Kothari is that they had given a list of services provided to such Diplomatic Missions, and they have all the bills etc. in their possession, to support their submission. As such, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in observing that the appellants do not have any evidence to that effect. He submits that if given an opportunity, he can place these documents before the authorities below.
3. As regards the services between the two registered courier agents, Shri Kothari draws my attention to para 16 of Trade Notice No. 88/G1/62/96 dated 1.11.96 issued by the Calcutta Commissionerate, which is to the effect that co-loaders providing services to the courier agencies, are not covered by the definition of courier agencies, inasmuch as they are not providing any service directly to the customers. He also submits that the above Trade Notice is binding on the authorities below, who have not examined the issue from the said angle. He, however, fairly agrees that the said Trade Notice was not placed either before the original adjudicating authority or before the appellate authority.
4. I have heard Shri N.K. Mishra, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue.
5. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the matter needs to
go back to the original adjudicating authority for examining and verification of
the services provided to the Diplomatic Missions or international organisation
covered by the Notification in question. The original adjudicating authority
would also look into the appellants’ claim that business between the two courier
agencies, is not covered by the Rules and no service tax leviable on the same.
Accordingly, I set aside the impugned Order and remand the matters to the
original adjudicating authority for looking into the two disputed issues for the
purposes of apellants’ liability to pay Service Tax. All the five appeals are thus
allowed by way of remand.