9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 527 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - mark-up on freight charges - ocean freight - air freight - activity of the appellant in arranging transportation of the cargo - service or not - HELD THAT - On perusal of the Annexure to the Show Cause Notice, it is seen that the demand is raised not only on the mark-up but also on the ocean freight and air freight. These charges are not subject to levy of Service Tax during the disputed period. The mark-up received by the appellant on the freight charges is due to the difference in the freight charges collected from the shipper and paid to the shipping / airliners. The issue is no longer res integra, the Tribunal in the case of M/S. TIGER LOGISTICS (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-II, DELHI 2022 (2) TMI 455 - CESTAT NEW DELHI held that the activity is trading of cargo space and there is no rendering of service. The demand of Service Tax on mark-up / differential of ocean freight was set aside. In the case of M/S. DIRECT LOGISTICS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX BANGALORE SERVICE TAX- I 2021 (9) TMI 500 - CESTAT BANGALORE , the demand was raised on the mark-up received on the difference between the freight charges collected and paid to the shipping liners where it was held that no service tax is chargeable on the difference between the ocean freight collected from the clients and the ocean freight paid to the shipping lines. The Tribunal in the case of M/S. EMU LINES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST CE, BELAPUR 2023 (6) TMI 64 - CESTAT MUMBAI had considered the very same issue where the demand of Service Tax was raised under Business Auxiliary Services. It was held by the Tribunal that the activity does not amount to rendering of service and it is merely trading of cargo space. The said decision was upheld by the Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CE BELAPUR VERSUS M/S EMU LINE PVT. LTD. 2023 (2) TMI 1155 - SC ORDER . Thus, the demand of Service Tax on ocean freight / air freight or the mark-up on the above received by the appellant cannot be subject to levy of Service Tax - the impugned orders set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of Service Tax on ocean freight and air freight charges. 2. Liability of Service Tax on the mark-up received by the appellant on freight charges. 3. Applicability of Section 66D(p)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994, and Rule 10 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. 4. Interpretation of the activity as a service or trading of cargo space. 5. Allegation of suppression of facts for evasion of Service Tax. Summary: 1. Liability of Service Tax on Ocean Freight and Air Freight Charges: The appellant, engaged in Clearing and Forwarding Agency Service and Cargo Handling Service, was found to collect ocean and air freight charges from customers, which were higher than the amounts paid to shipping companies. The Department contended that these charges, including the mark-up, were subject to Service Tax under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, from 01.07.2012. However, the Tribunal held that ocean freight and air freight charges were not subject to Service Tax during the disputed period as per Section 66D(p)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994, which placed transportation of goods by aircraft or vessel from a place outside India to the customs station in India in the negative list until 01.06.2016. 2. Liability of Service Tax on the Mark-Up Received: The Department argued that the mark-up on freight charges constituted a service. The Tribunal, referencing previous decisions (e.g., Tiger Logistics and EMU Lines Pvt. Ltd.), determined that the appellant's activity of arranging transportation and collecting a mark-up was trading of cargo space, not a service. The Tribunal noted that the appellant bought space on ships and sold it to customers, incurring profit or loss based on market conditions, which is a business activity, not a taxable service. 3. Applicability of Section 66D(p)(i) and Rule 10: The appellant argued that under Section 66D(p)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994, and Rule 10 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, the place of provision for transportation of goods is the destination of the goods. Since the destination in export shipments is outside India, no Service Tax was payable. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the demand for the period before 01.06.2016 was not sustainable as the services were in the negative list. 4. Interpretation of the Activity as a Service or Trading of Cargo Space: The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's activity of buying and selling cargo space was a business transaction rather than a service. The Tribunal cited that any profit from such transactions could not be considered consideration for a service. This interpretation was consistent with previous rulings, including the Supreme Court's upholding of the Tribunal's decision in EMU Lines Pvt. Ltd. 5. Allegation of Suppression of Facts: The Department alleged suppression of facts due to non-disclosure of the full value of taxable services in ST-3 returns. The Tribunal found no deliberate suppression with mens rea to evade tax since all transactions were recorded and disclosed during the investigation. The Tribunal noted that the appellant paid the disputed Service Tax along with interest before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, making the issuance of the notice unnecessary under Section 73(3). Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, concluding that the appellant's activities did not attract Service Tax on ocean freight, air freight, or the mark-up received. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.
|
