9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 462 - AT - Service TaxTaxability - providing Corporate Guarantee without any consideration - service tax on profit/mark up. Taxability of providing Corporate Guarantee without any consideration - HELD THAT - The issue was dealt at length by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of CGST Central Excise Vs Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd 2022 (2) TMI 1359 - CESTAT MUMBAI wherein it was held that any activity must, for the purpose of taxability under Finance Act, 1994, not only, in relation to another, reveal a provider , but also the flow of consideration for rendering of the service. In the absence of any of these two elements, taxability under section 66B of Finance Act, 1994 will not arise. It was held that there is no consideration insofar as Corporate Guarantee issued by respondent on behalf of their subsidiary companies is concerned. This decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Supreme Court 2023 (4) TMI 170 - SC ORDER - demand set aside. Taxability of service tax on profit/mark up - HELD THAT - The issue on taxability of service tax on profit/mark up is no more res integra as the same has been decided in catena of decisions, the latest being the judgment in the case of M/s Tiger Logistics (India) Ltd., vs Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Delhi 2022 (2) TMI 455 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that ' To earn this profit, he also takes the risk of being unable to sell. In the appellant s case, if the space on the ships which it bought cannot be sold to its customers fully, or due to market conditions, or is compelled to sell at lower than purchase price, the appellant incurs loss. In a contrary situation, it gains profits. This activity is a business in itself on account of the appellant and cannot be called a service at all. Neither can the profit earned from such business be termed consideration for service.' - demand set aside. Appeal of assessee allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of differential ocean freight under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS). 2. Taxability of notional commission on corporate guarantee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Taxability of Differential Ocean Freight under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS): The assessee-appellant engaged in rail freight and transportation services was charged with tax on the differential ocean freight under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS). The Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleged that the difference between the payment made to the liner and the payment received from the customers constituted commission/remuneration/additional consideration/margin received by the appellant for providing services as an agent of its customers. The appellant contended that the services provided did not qualify as BAS since there was no agency relationship between the appellant and its customers. The transactions between the customer and the appellant and the appellant and the liner were distinct and on a principal-to-principal basis. The appellant was responsible for the execution of contracts and did not act on behalf of the liner or its customers. The appellant relied on various decisions, including Commissioner Of Service Tax, New Delhi vs. Karam Freight Movers and CBEC Circular No. 197/7/2016, which clarified that for a service provider to qualify as a principal provider, they must negotiate terms with the liner, have the invoice raised on themselves, and take all legal responsibilities and risks for the transportation of goods. The Tribunal noted that the issue of taxability of service tax on profit/mark-up was no longer res integra, citing cases like CGST, Delhi vs. Pristine Logistics and Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and TIGER LOGISTICS (INDIA) LTD. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Delhi. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the mark-up on ocean freight income, as it was a business activity and not a service. 2. Taxability of Notional Commission on Corporate Guarantee: The SCN also included a demand for service tax on notional income from a corporate guarantee executed by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the demand for the period up to 30.06.2012, stating that no consideration flowed from the respondent-assessee to Neptune Orient Liner. Post 01.07.2012, the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 required that an activity carried out by one person for another must be for a consideration to qualify as a service. The appellant argued that since no consideration was received by Neptune Orient Liner for providing the corporate guarantee, the activity could not be termed as a service. The appellant also contended that the valuation of services under Rule 3 of the Valuation Rules did not refer to any other legislation, making the reference to Safe Harbour Rules under the Income Tax Act inapplicable. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd, which held that for taxability under the Finance Act, 1994, there must be both a provider and a flow of consideration. In the absence of consideration, taxability under section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 does not arise. The Tribunal upheld that corporate guarantees without consideration are not subject to service tax, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant (Service Tax Appeal No. 50068 of 2019) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department (Service Tax Appeal No. 50311 of 2019). The Tribunal concluded that the differential ocean freight did not fall under BAS, and the notional commission on the corporate guarantee without consideration was not taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03.09.2024.
|
