9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1388 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary Service - collection of mark-up on the ocean freight - levy of service tax - Held that - The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Karam Freight Movers 2017 (3) TMI 785 - CESTAT NEW DELHI have analysed the very same issue and held that mere sale and purchase of cargo space is trading and is not a taxable activity. It is trading of cargo space - demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Service tax liability on mark-up collected on ocean freight by steamer agents. Analysis: The appellants, registered under various service categories, were found to have not paid service tax on certain amounts received and retained by them. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalties, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal. The main contention was regarding the mark-up collected on ocean freight by the appellants. The appellant argued that the transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis and relied on a precedent to support their case. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the mark-up constituted commission subject to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving similar issues and held that mere sale and purchase of cargo space is considered trading and not a taxable activity. The Tribunal emphasized that the mark-up collected by the appellants from exporters was an element of profit in the transaction and not commission earned while acting on behalf of the exporter. It was noted that the appellants were already paying service tax on commission received from airlines/shipping lines. The Tribunal found no impropriety in the original authority's decision to drop the demand based on these findings. In conclusion, the Tribunal, following the precedent case, held that the demand could not be sustained and needed to be set aside. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the bench comprising Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial), and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical).
|
