9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue regarding service tax on the booking of space in the ships of the shipping lines is squarely covered by the Tribunal in the matter of M/s Tiger Logistics India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Delhi [2022 (2) TMI 455 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it is held that 'the appellant is not liable to pay service tax.'
Conclusion - Appellant were not liable to pay service tax on the margin earned from ocean freight.
The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32/2013 dated 23.07.2013, the matter was remanded for de-nova adjudication. During the above period, another Show Cause Notice No. 124/2013 dated 24.06.2013 was issued demanding service tax of Rs. 3,58,54,315/-for the period from 10/2011 to 09/2012. 4. The adjudicating authority in the de-nova proceedings has taken up all the 3(three) show cause notices and has held that the activities of canvassing of cargo for the shipping line undertaken by the appellant, were classifiable under 'Steamer Agent' service as defined under Section 65(100) during the period prior to 01.07.2012 and as 'service' as per Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, thereafter. The adjudicating authority further held that when the decision in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxed under the category of 'Steamer Agent' Services and that the actual ocean freight paid to the shipping line is not to be includable in the value of taxable service, since service of transportation of cargo in vessel through ocean was not a defined taxable service in terms of any of the sub-clauses of clauses of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, as it existed during the relevant time. 6. Thus, a service tax of Rs. 1,42,38,312/-was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 15/2014 dated 26.09.2014, an amount of Rs. 26,02,854/-was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 16/2016 dated 26.09.2016 and an amount of Rs. 44,51,183/-was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 17/2014 dated 26.09.2014 along with interest and imposed penalties un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the Appellant during the hearing submitted that the issue is squarely covered by decisions in the following cases; (a) 2010 (18) STR 348 (Tri.-Ahmd)-Gudwin Logistics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara, (b) 2014 (35) S.T.R. 858 (Tri. Chennai)-Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai. Vs. Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (c) 2014 (36) S.T.R. 1310 (Tri.-Chennai)-APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chennai-III. (d) 2016 (45) S.T.R. 574 (A.A.R.)-Global Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. (e) 2016 (43) S.T.R. 215 (Tri.-Mumbai)-M/s Greenwich Meridian Logistics India Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai. (f) 2017 (47) S.T.R. 129 (Tri. Mumbai)-Phoenix International Freight Services Pvt. Ltd. (g) 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 85 (Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 30 months w.e.f 14.05.2016. Therefore, the entire demand issued vide Show Cause Notice No. 57/2011/ST dated 08.04.2011 is time barred except for 2010-11. Therefore, show cause notice invoking extended period of limitation is also unsustainable. 12. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned orders and also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of M/s Marine Container Services (South) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T, Tirunelveli-2019 (22) GSTL 51 (Tri.-Chennai). 13. Heard both sides and perused the records. 14. The issue regarding service tax on the booking of space in the ships of the shipping lines is squarely covered by the Tribunal in the matter of M/s Tige ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ips 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. Respectfully following Satkar Logistics, Nilja Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Surya Shipping and ITC Freight Services, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax." 15. In view of the above discussion and following the decision in the case of M/s Tiger Logistics India, Ltd., (supra), the Appeal Nos. 23864/2014 and 23865/2014 filed the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
