Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 317 - AT - Service TaxValuation of service tax - wharfage charges under Port Service - when GMB charged wharfage charges at the rate of 20% of the notified rate to EBTL and the same was charged on actual by M/s. EBTL to M/s. ESTL, the EBTL on the transaction between EBTL and ESTL required to charge the service tax on 100% of the notified rate including 80% rebate given by GMB to EBTL or on the 20% of the notified rate on which the service tax was discharged is correct or otherwise? - invocation of extended period of limitation. HELD THAT:- In the present case, admittedly the respondent raised invoices for services charge for wharfage charges under Port Service at the rate of 20% of the notified rate as per GMB, however, other than this there is no other amount flowing in the form of money or in any form from ESTL to EBTL therefore, the case of the respondent does not fall under clause (II) of Section 67(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. It is pertinent to note that the entire case of the revenue is that there is a capital expenditure incurred by EBTL and on that account 80% rebate was given by GMB. The transaction which is under question in the present case is not between GMB and EBTL but it is between EBTL and ESTL, in this transaction the capital expenditure incurred by the EBTL is not relevant for the purpose of charging wharfage charges by EBTL to ESTL - the entire foundation of the case that 80% rebate given by GMB to EBTL on account of the capital expenditure incurred by the EBTL is not relevant for the transaction which is between EBTL and ESTL. Rule 3 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 shall be applicable only in case were the value is not ascertainable. In the present case, the value for the service i.e. wharfage charges is clearly ascertained as per the invoice issued by EBTL to ESTL. Therefore, Rule 3 as whole not applicable in the facts of the present case. Without prejudice, even if clause (b) is applied, the cost of service to the respondent was only charged to ESTL therefore, the value of service charged by EBTL to ESTL is not less than the cost for such taxable service. In the present case, there is no dispute that the gross amount charged by EBTL to ESTL is equivalent to 20% of notified rate of wharfage charges and there is no additional consideration therefore, the amount charged by EBTL to ESTL is the sole consideration therefore, the value determined in the present case is strictly in accordance with Section 67 of the Act. In the present case, neither it is a case of any extra consideration flowing from service recipient to the service provider nor there is any proof of such extra consideration therefore, the gross amount charged by EBTL to ESTL being sole consideration will alone be liable to service tax and no any other amount which is otherwise not existing. The appellant has discharged service tax correctly on the 20% of the wharfage charges charged to the M/s. ESTL. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The audit report dated 7.9.12 conveyed to the respondent by Jurisdictional Superintendent vide his letter dated 1.2.2013 had in Para 1 specifically referred to clause 22 of the License Agreement dated 25.3.2010 with GMB and had pointed out similar short payment of service tax on part of GMB on wharfage charges on an identical ground that the service tax was paid on concessional rate granted to them by GMB and not on the full rate. These establish that the copy of agreement dated 25.3.10 entered into by the respondent with GMB along with all its enclosures was submitted to the department and clause 22 which is subject matter of the present dispute was very much in the knowledge of the department as similarly short levy in GMB was pointed out earlier - the invocation of the longer period for demand is absolutely incorrect and not sustainable. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, is sustained - decided against Revenue.
|