9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. In the case of M/S BVC LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE ST, JAIPUR [ 2017 (9) TMI 709 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , it was held that CBEC vide Circular No.197/7/2016-ST dated 12.08.2016 has clarified that a freight forwarder, when acting as a principal, will not be liable to pay service tax when the destination of the goods is from a place in India to a place outside India. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 87233 of 2019 And ST/Cross/86003 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/85850/2022 - Dated:- 13-9-2022 - MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Prabhakar Sharma, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Appellant Shri Saurabh Dixit, Advocate, for the Respondent ORDER Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice dt 29-3-2017. d) I impose penalty of Rs 200/- (Rupees Two hundred only) u/s 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, being penalty not more than 10% of the service tax demanded vide periodic show cause notice dt 1-3-2018 order the noticee to pay the same forthwith. e) I impose penalty of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) u/s 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. f) This order is issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against Ms Chemical Process Piping Pvt. Ltd. under the Finance Act, 1994 or under the provisions of any other Act for the time being in force in India. 2.1 The respondent has filed cross objections in the matter. 2.2 The respondent was issued a show cause notice demanding serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue and Shri Saurabh Dixit, Advocate, for the respondent. 3.2 Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the grounds taken in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 3.3 Learned counsel objects to the appeal, firstly stating that as the amount involved in the present appeal is less than Rs.50 lakhs and as per the litigation policy Circular F. No. 390/Misc/116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019, this appeal is not maintainable. He further submits that on the merits also, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the respondent by various decisions of the Tribunal as follows:- Marinetrans India Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (33) GSTL 241 (Tri.- Hyd.)] Mas Logistics [2019 (21) GSTL 37 (Tri.-Chennai)] Phoenix International Freight Services Pvt. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of shippers, contract for space or slots in vessels in anticipation of demand and as a distinct business activity. Such a contract forecloses the allotment of such space by the shipping line or steamer agent with the risk of non-usage of the procured space devolving on the appellant. By no stretch is this assumption of risk within the scope of agency function. Ergo, it is nothing but a principal-to-principal transaction and the freight charges are consideration for space procured from shipping line. Correspondingly, allotment of procured space to shippers at negotiated rates within the total consideration in a multi-modal transportation contract with a consignor is another distinct principal-to-principal transaction. We, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ponsibility for the transportation of the goods and undertakes all the attendant risks, he is providing the service of transportation of goods, from a place in India to a place outside India. He is bearing all the risks and liability for transportation. In such cases they are not covered under the category of intermediary, which by definition excludes a person who provides a service on the account. 3. It follows therefore that a freight forwarder, when acting as a principal, will not be liable to pay service tax when the destination of the goods is from a place in India to a place outside India. 8. In the light of the clarification given in the Board's Circular (supra) as well as by following the ratio laid down in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
