9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the transportation – In this invoice, it is clearly mentioned that the Service tax on the transportation is payable by the importer or exporter and the appellant is not liable to pay Service tax thereon – Consignor or consignee has discharged appropriate Service tax – Appellant is not liable to pay Service tax on freight charges paid by him and reimbursed by their clients under GTA services as it would result in double taxation. Further As decided in Lee & Muir Head Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of S.T.[ 2008 (10) TMI 131 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ] All activities of CHA other than Custom House Agency cannot be taxed under CHA service, applicant are not liable to pay Service tax on container movement charges and transportation charges under CHA services and on freight charges under GTA services. When the services of container movement charges which is nothing but transportation of containers from the CFS to the port is not includible in the value of Custom House Agent Services – Order set aside – Appeal allowed – In favour of assessee. - - - 215/2011 (M-ST) - Dated:- 12-12-2011 - Shri P. Ayyam Perumal, I.R.S., J. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri R. Srinivasan, Consultant and Rahul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansport Agency service. However, the Learned Lower Adjudicating Authority has clearly travel beyond the case of the department in Show Cause Notice and confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,09,144/- under Custom House Agent Service and demand of Service tax of Rs. 15,504/- under Goods transport Agency service. (iv) that under no circumstances, a demand of Service tax can be raised on the appellant as the appellant are neither the consignor of the goods nor the consignee of the goods. This fact is not in dispute. The consignment note issued by the goods transport agency clearly specifies the names of the consignor and the consignee of the goods. The name of the appellant does not figure anywhere in the consignment note. Hence, the appellant are neither consignor of goods nor the consignee of the goods. As a matter of fact, the Learned Lower Adjudicating Authority admits this factual position. Despite the same, he had confirmed the demand of Service tax. (v) that the appellant are not liable to pay Service tax under Custom House Agent service on the aforesaid transportation charges since the same are reimbursements. (vi) that the Show Cause Notice alleged that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GTA service, is not sustainable and to support their contention, they relied on the following decisions : 2008 (9) S.T.R. 412 (Tri.-Bang.) in the case of Bax Global India Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore 2009 (14) S.T.R. 348 (Tri.-Bang.) in the case of Lee Muir Head P. Ltd. v CST, Bangalore. They also submitted that for having arranged GTA service for their client s customers, the amounts were got reimbursed later on and the applicable Service tax was discharged in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules by the client s customers and hence there cannot be further tax liability on their client. They filed synopsis of summary of submissions. They assured to file further submission within a week s time to prove payment of Service tax by their client s customers. 4. I have carefully gone through the records of this case and the oral as well as written submissions. After disposing of the stay petition, let me take up the main appeal for decision. The two issues to be decided in the instant case are whether (i) the demand is time-barred as claimed by the appellant and (ii) the appellant is liable to pay Service tax on container movement charges and local transport cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the clients for the transportation. In this invoice, it is clearly mentioned that the Service tax on the transportation is payable by the importer or exporter and the appellant is not liable to pay Service tax thereon. The appellant had submitted copies of consignment note and invoices before this forum. The charges incurred by the appellant is reimbursed by their clients. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay Service tax on transportation charges in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service tax Rules, 1994. I find that the Department had alleged that the appellant had collected charges over and above freight charges. The appellant had contended that the difference between the amount of freight paid to the GTA and the amount collected is very small and the same is on account of expenditure incurred by the appellant on behalf of the customers which is not receipted. Thus, the appellant had recovered only the actual expenditure from the customers. I fmd that the consignor or consignee has discharged appropriate Service tax and the appellant had produced documentary evidence regarding this. Hence, I hold that the appellant is not liable to pay Service tax on freight charges paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
