2020 (9) TMI 651 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of Service Tax - Transportation of Goods through Pipelines / Conduit Services - the transportation charges are being separately recovered from the buyers in addition to the base price of crude oil - HELD THAT - The question of service tax levy would arise only in the situation covered in the former case and not definitely in the later case. We find that the whole purpose of the arrangement is to execute the sale transaction in terms of MOU entered by the appellant with the customers like Indian Oil Corporation, for purchase and sale of crude oil, sample copies of which are annexed with the appeal paper book. We are of the view that had there been no arrangement for sale of crude oil to the buyer oil companies, there would have been no case for the appellant assessee to undertake the transportation of goods. It is only in order to honour the mandate of sale transaction to deliver the goods at delivery point, the transportation activity has been undertaken by the appellant assessee. The learned Commissioner has categorically accepted the fact that the appellant is under contractual obligation to supply and deliver the goods at the buyer's premises which has been referred as 'Custody Transfer Point' or the point of delivery. However, he confused the whole matter with the concept of place of removal to hold that the transportation charges is not liable to be included in the value of crude oil, which is not the subject matter of dispute herein for the reason that the demand in this case is not on the crude oil but on the transportation charges which though separately recovered is to solely honour the sale transaction by delivering the goods at the buyers premises. Thus, the transportation of crude oil has been undertaken by the appellant assessee in the capacity of being a seller not a service provider. Further, since there is no service provider - service recipient relationship, there cannot be any question of service tax levy and thus, the demand cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of service tax for transportation of goods through pipelines.

Analysis:
The judgment involved the assessee, M/s. OIL India Limited, appealing against service tax demands for transportation of goods through pipelines. The primary issue was whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax for transportation charges recovered from buyers in addition to the base price of crude oil. The appellant argued that the transportation activity was in relation to the sale of crude oil and that sales tax had already been paid on transportation charges. They contended that service tax and sales tax cannot be levied simultaneously, citing relevant legal precedents. The Revenue, however, supported the Ld. Commissioner's findings and argued that separate charges recovered indicated the provision of transportation services. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the transportation activity to determine if the appellant acted as a service provider or a seller of crude oil.

The Tribunal noted that the transportation activity was undertaken to fulfill the sale transaction obligations with buyers like Indian Oil Corporation. It was observed that the transportation was necessary to deliver goods at the buyer's premises as per the sale agreements. The Commissioner acknowledged that the risk and rewards of transportation remained with the appellant until delivery to the buyer's premises. The Tribunal emphasized that the transportation charges were solely to honor the sale transaction by delivering goods at the buyer's premises. The Tribunal also referenced a similar case involving Grasim Industries Ltd., where transportation charges were included in the assessable value for Central Excise purposes, indicating no service tax liability on the appellants.

The Tribunal further referred to a case involving Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., where it was established that no service tax liability existed when the sale occurred after loading was completed. The Tribunal cited additional cases to support the view that transportation charges were part of the consideration for sale and not subject to service tax. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the transportation of crude oil by the appellant was in the capacity of a seller, not a service provider. As there was no service provider-service recipient relationship, the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty was set aside. Consequently, all appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per the law.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of service tax demands for transportation of goods through pipelines by analyzing the nature of the transportation activity to determine the appellant's role as a service provider or seller. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, concluding that the transportation was part of the sale transaction and not subject to service tax. The judgment referenced legal precedents and highlighted the contractual obligations and risk allocation to support the decision to set aside the service tax demand.