2007 (10) TMI 132 - AT - Service Tax

CHA collecting air freight charges for export are actually for the transportation services rendered by airliner other breakup services also not relates to CHA Comm(A) order decided in favor of CHA has not been challenged by revenue No liability to pay tax arise Demand & penalty unjustified

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against service tax order by Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore for non-declaration of entire value of taxable services; Applicability of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994; Taxability of charges collected by appellants for various services; Finality of earlier Order-in-Appeal in favor of appellants; Taxability of services provided by appellants as freight forwarders; Taxability of storage and warehousing charges; Reimbursable nature of certain charges collected by appellants; Jurisdiction of Customs House Agent activities; Time-barred demand; Imposition of penalty.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore, confirming service tax amounting to Rs.3,61,87,280 against the appellants for the period from 2000-2004. Penalties were imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants contended that the Order-in-Appeal earlier allowed in their favor had attained finality and could not be re-agitated by the Revenue, citing relevant Supreme Court decisions. They argued that charges collected for certain services did not fall under Customs House Agent (CHA) activities and should not be taxable. The Tribunal noted that the CHA activity was limited to Customs Station and did not extend beyond it, emphasizing that certain charges collected by the appellants were not related to CHA services. The Tribunal observed that storage and handling charges were taxable only from 16-8-2002, making the demand for a period prior to this date not sustainable.

The Tribunal analyzed the breakdown of charges collected by the appellants, categorizing them into various services like air exports, air imports, ocean exports, ocean imports, customs clearance, and logistics. It was noted that charges for services provided directly to clients, without acting as agents, were not taxable as CHA services. The Tribunal emphasized the reimbursable nature of certain charges and the profit or loss incurred in activities not related to CHA services, citing the Supreme Court decision in Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. case. The Tribunal found that the major portion of the billing represented freight charges, which had already been decided in favor of the appellants by the Commissioner (Appeals) and not challenged by the Revenue, making the demand time-barred and unsustainable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellants had discharged duty liability for CHA activities and that other activities not related to CHA services were not subject to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief and finding no justification for the imposition of any penalty. The judgment was pronounced on 25-10-2007 by the Tribunal members.