|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 76 Records
-
2021 (7) TMI 1418
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the appeal before the High Court by the Revenue against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal “CESTAT” was filed within limitation. In the circumstances, the delay would have to be condoned. Similarly, for the same reason, the delay on the part of Infosys Limited in filing its appeals against the judgment of CESTAT in M/S INFOSYS LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, - BANGALORE, [2014 (3) TMI 695 - CESTAT BANGALORE] would have to be condoned.
Delay is accordingly condoned in both sets of appeals.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1407
Deposit of Service Tax or not - learned Commissioner in the impugned order has observed that though the appellant has submitted that the amount has been deposited through book adjustment but the actual payment has not been established - HELD THAT:- The Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, vide letter no. 2017/AC-II/1/21 dated 16.11.2020 has confirmed the deposit of the service tax. It has been initer-alia stated that The amount of service tax collected by Railways was being credited to Civil Head of Account, Major Head – 0044 Service Tax every month through monthly Account Current sent to CGA, Ministry of Finance as per existant guidelines from the Ministry of Finance. The details of Service Tax booked under Major Head 0044 by Ministry of Railways during the financial year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15.
Thus, service tax stands deposited with the Government Treasury through account adjustment, instead of payment by challans, as per the guidelines issued by the Finance Ministry, and hence, this is not the case of non-payment of service tax - The said view has consistently been taken by the Tribunal in M/S. POST MASTER VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, JODHPUR [2020 (4) TMI 345 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], SENIOR POST MASTER VERSUS CCE AND ST, JAIPUR-I [2018 (3) TMI 1673 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUWAHATI [2017 (3) TMI 789 - CESTAT KOLKATA].
There is a need for examination of quantification of tax amount involved during the period in dispute so as to ensure whether the same corresponds to the amount deposited by way of book adjustment for which the matter is remanded back for limited purpose. In the said remand proceedings, the authorities shall verify with regard to the quantification and supporting documents.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1385
Maintainability of appeal - Declared Service or not - appellant had collected an amount towards compensation/penalty from the buyers of coal on the short lifted/un-lifted quantity of coal - HELD THAT:- Appeal admitted.
Issue notice on application for interim relief, returnable on 27-8-2021.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1350
Availment of abatement benefit - inclusion of value of value of materials supplied by the clients free of cost, which have been used in providing Construction Services by the appellant, for calculation of abatement benefit - HELD THAT:- The issue stands decided squarely in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX ETC. VERSUS M/S. BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. ETC. [2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that value of goods supplied free of cost by the clients are not required to be included for availing the abatement benefit in terms of the above notifications. The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, while rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue, has upheld the view taken by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/S BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. & OTHERS VERSUS CST, DELHI & OTHERS. [2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)].
The amount which has been paid in excess of the quantified demand by the Appellant may be refunded subject to quantification of the demand by the learned Adjudicating Authority. For the limited purpose of quantification of the demand, it is being remanded to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1314
Completion of the proceedings - HELD THAT:- The parties are directed to complete the pleadings and file their written submissions not exceeding five pages each within six weeks.
List the matter before the Court on 22nd November, 2021. Interim orders to continue.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1261
Rejection of refund claim of service tax - construction of Government buildings - refund arising as a result of restoration of exemption benefit of N/N/. 12/2012 and 25/2012 dated 20/06/2016 - Prospective effect or retrospective effect - Rule 173-S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - it was held by High Court that the notification No. 12/2012 & 25/2012 ceased to exist w.e.f. 01/04/2015. The exemption was revived by notification dated 01/03/2016. But since it was prospective in effect, the appellant was not entitled for any exemption, which the appellant was aware of and with open mind and eyes deposited the service tax due with interest.
HELD THAT:- There are no infirmity in the view taken by the first authority, which has been rightly affirmed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, as well as the High Court. There is no merit in this appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1260
Classification of services - contract for supply of mud and spreading and dumping of earth on agricultural land - classifiable under site formation and clearance service, excavation, earth moving and demolition service or not - period 01 October, 2007 to 31 March, 2008 - time limitation - it was held by CESTAT that findings of the Adjudicating Authority that since the agricultural land was subsequently converted into commercial land, the activity undertaken by the appellant prior to the said conversion would become taxable subsequent to conversion of the land, cannot be agreed upon.
HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1259
Maintainability of appeal - Classification of services - Whether or not, the Boards and the University are educational institutions. If the Boards and University are found to be educational institutions, the services provided to them are exempt? - it was held by High Court that Once it is held that the service recipients are educational institutions, the impugned show-cause notices are rendered unsustainable.
HELD THAT:- The Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution, need not be entertained - the Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1255
Benefits as far as the Chit Fund Companies - Nature of activity of "chit fund business" - cash management / fund management - whether classifiable under the category of "banking and other financial services"? - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that the benefits conferred by the Supreme Court is to be extended and in respect of all other allegations, an adjudication is to be entertained with reference to the findings made by the Original Authority/Appellate Authority - the Original Authority or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, made certain findings in respect of the claim made by the petitioner.
As far as the benefits conferred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VERSUS M/S. MARGADARSHI CHIT FUNDS (P) LTD. ETC [2017 (7) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT], are concerned, the same is to be extended and as pointed out by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, the benefits have already been extended in favour of the petitioner - However, the Appellate Authority may segregate the issues and accordingly proceed with an adjudication. If any appeal is preferred by the petitioner, challenging the order in original and the show cause notice, which are under challenge in the present writ petitions.
This being the factum, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in a prescribed format and by complying with the Statute and the Rules and the Appellate Authority, on receipt of any such appeal from the petitioner, shall condone the delay, if any and entertain the appeal and adjudicate the issues on merits and in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1247
Refund of Cenvat credit - during the period the respondent was not registered as service provider - CESTAT allowed the refund - N/N. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006 - notice was served on the first respondent, the same returned with the postal endorsement ‘left’ as early as 8-6-2019 - first respondent did not even intimate the Revenue about the change of office - HELD THAT:- Tribunal stated the legal position that the State should not be enriched at the costs of its citizen. There can be no quarrel over the said proposition. However, the Tribunal failed to consider as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in passing the common order dated 18-12-2013 allowing the appeals filed by the first respondent-assessee. Several grounds have been raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal, which could be seen from the grounds of appeal annexed in the typed set of papers.
The Tribunal was required to examine the correctness of the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) with reference to the grounds raised by the Revenue before it - the common impugned order is without any discussion on any of the grounds raised by the Revenue.
The matters are remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration in accordance with law after issuing notice to the first respondent-assessee - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1216
Interest on late payment of sanctioned refund - Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 - despite order, refund not ordered till date - HELD THAT:- The refund claim of the appellant stands already allowed with consequential relief. Since the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is silent about the sanction of interest and the law if mandates the interest to flow consequent to sanction of refund that shall be covered under the order of consequential relief already passed by Commissioner (Appeals).
There are no cause of action as of now available with the appellant to challenge the said order. The appropriate remedy would have been sought by filing an application to the Department seeking implementation of the impugned order No.81/2019 dated 25th November, 2019.
The appeal is, therefore, held to be pre-mature, accordingly, stands disposed of giving liberty to the appellant to approach the Department.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1195
Refund of erroneous payment of service tax - time limitation - submission of required documents - principle of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- Rule 2(bc) of Service Tax Rules, refers to the meaning of ‘body corporate’ in Section 2(7) of the Companies Act, wherein any other body corporate which includes a LLP is specifically excluded from the definition of body corporate. Thus, the appellant as a LLP, is not required to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism during the period under dispute.
It is held that the appellant is entitled to refund of the service tax paid erroneously under reverse charge, as per the refund application - the adjudicating authority is directed to grant refund within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with interest for the period starting after three months from the date of refund application till the date of grant of refund.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1183
Levy of service tax - Banking and Other Financial Services - Interest earned from lending of Gold - Safe-vault services allegedly provided to foreign sellers - period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 - HELD THAT:- The issue decided by Division Bench of the Tribunal in M/S. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ST [2020 (3) TMI 751 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and the appeal has been decided in favour of the assess. The submissions, therefore, is that in view of the aforesaid decision, of the Tribunal, the order impugned in the present appeal should be set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1146
Levy of service tax - professional services - services provided by an advocate or a partnership firm of advocates providing legal services - HELD THAT:- A compliance affidavit has been filed by the Principal Commissioner, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar enclosing the copies of instructions issued on 9th April, 2021 and 15th April, 2021 reiterating, inter alia, that the services provided by an advocate or a partnership firm of advocates providing legal services to any person other than a business entity and to a business entity with a turnover up to rupees ten lakhs in the preceding financial year are exempted from levy of service tax.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1107
Validity of SCN - Jurisdiction - demand of service tax on services provided or received which all are not exempted under the provisions of the Act - petitioner falling under the definition "service provider" so as to issue show cause notice with reference to certain services rendered by the petitioner, or not - HELD THAT:- This Court is of an opinion that the High Court is expected to be slow in entertaining a writ petition against a show cause notice. A writ against a show cause notice may be entertained only if the said notice is issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or if an allegation of malafides is raised.
Even in case of raising an allegation of malafides, the authorities against whom such an allegation is raised, is to be impleaded as party respondent in his personal capacity. In all other circumstances, the allegations or counter allegations are to be adjudicated with reference to the evidences to be produced by the respective parties and such an exercise cannot be done in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the High Court is expected to be cautious while entertaining a writ petition filed against the show cause notice.
It is not in dispute between the parties that transmission and distribution of electricity are exempted from service tax. Question arises, what all are the services falling under the exemption clause and the other services which all are not covered under the exemption clause. The first respondent has specifically stated that they have issued the show cause notice only in respect of the services stated above, which all are not covered under the exemption clause under the Act.
This Court is of the considered opinion that only if the exemption clause is applicable, then alone the jurisdiction point needs to be considered with reference to the facts of the present case. However, in the present case, the first respondent himself has categorically admitted both in the show cause notice as well as in the counter filed by them that specifically exemption is granted for transmission or distribution of electricity by any electricity transmission or distribution utility. The first respondent has made it clear that show cause notice has not been issued demanding service tax for transmission or distribution of electricity.
The service tax are demanded only for other services which all are not covered under the exemption clause and therefore, these facts are to be adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences. When there is a slightest doubt in respect of the point of jurisdiction is raised, then the benefit of the said doubt is to be given for the Revenue. This being the general principles in the present case and the petitioner is also an organisation owned by the State, the first respondent has issued the show cause notice with reference to the services which all are not covered in the exemption clause.
The petitioners are directed to submit their explanations, documents and evidences along with legal submissions, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - on receipt of the explanations from the petitioners, the concerned respondents are directed to proceed with the enquiry by affording opportunity to the petitioners, including personal hearing, as contemplated and complete the process and pass final orders as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioners are aggrieved from and out of the said final orders, to be passed thereafter, they are at liberty to approach the appellate authority for redressal of their grievances.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1095
Classification of services - renting of immovable property service or Support Services of Business and Commerce - appellant/assessee is the first Electronic Software Technology Park promoted and funded by the Government of Kerala and is a State Government Company - amount received from KSITIL is towards Business Support Service or not - inclusion of notional interest on refundable deposits in value of taxable supply - taxability of sale of space or time for advertisement - bus service plying between the Technopark and Kariyavattom - tour operator service or not - time limitation - interest - penalties.
Classification of services - assessee had acquired land and developed ETP by constructing buildings, roads, continuous power and water supply, security service, communication, housekeeping, medical attention including ambulance service etc. - renting of immovable property service or Support Services of Business and Commerce - HELD THAT:- The assessee/appellant is a State Government company and has built up spaces in the buildings or modules for rent or lease to their clients for their business or commerce. The lessees are required to undertake necessary alterations or modifications and certain finishing work and interiors to facilitate occupation of premises. It is also found that supply of electricity and water is incidental to renting of premises. Further it s found that supply of electricity, water and air-conditioning are obligatory and incidental for use of the rented or leased premises. The sale of water and electricity is a transaction of sale of goods and the assessee is not charging any service tax on the sale of water, electricity, airconditioning and supply of electricity by operating DG sets. The charges are collected separately.
As per the Department, assessee has rendered composite services whereas as per the assessee, they have rendered only ‘Renting of Immovable Property Service’. Further as per the clause (1) of Section 65A which states that “a taxable service would be classified in the category which gives the most specific description of the service provided” is applicable in the case of the assessee.
The rental or lease rental of the building takes into consideration the common facilities and the maintenance of the building and the supply of electricity and water is the transaction of sale of goods and their value cannot be included in the value of the service. Further the TBIC is a different entity registered as a society and eligible for exemption from service tax under Notification No.9/2007 and similarly TSECC has been established for the purpose of facilitating software development of their clients and the transaction of these entities with the concerned units are independent of the lease/rent of premises by the assessee/appellant. The presence of these independent entities in the Technopark pursuing their own objectives does not change or alter the nature of transactions of renting of immovable property by the appellant. Further the services rendered by the assessee clearly satisfy the requirement of definition of ‘Renting of Immovable Property Service’ as provided under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 and taxable from 01.06.2007. Further it is seen from the circular issued by the CBEC in para 3.3, it is clarified as to what is the scope of support service of business or commerce.
Thus, the services rendered by the appellant fall under the category of ‘Renting of Immovable Property service’ and the applicable services tax on such rental or lease charges has been correctly paid.
Whether the amount received from KSITIL is towards Business Support Service or not? - HELD THAT:- KSITIL is a 100% State Government undertaking, acting as an apex body for developing infrastructure in the State of Kerala under whose supervision the assessee/appellant has been established. Since KSITIL was a newly promoted company, the budgetary allocation and release of funds by the State Government was delayed and therefore in the meantime, the assessee incurred expenses which were entirely reversed by KSITIL when the State Government released funds to KSITIL - the finding of the learned Commissioner that KSITIL is an associated enterprise is not tenable in law because KSITIL is an independent company. Appellant has not provided any service to KSITIL for consideration. In the absence of any service, the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the appellant cannot be subjected to levy of service tax - the demand of service tax of ₹ 19,08,987/- is without any basis.
Whether notional interest on refundable deposits can be included in the value of taxable supply for levy of service tax? - HELD THAT:- There is no finding that the notional interest on refundable deposit has resulted in undervaluation of service of renting of immovable property and further there is no evidence of nexus between the two - the notional interest on refundable deposit cannot be included in the value of taxable service for the purpose of levy of service tax and this issue is decided against the Revenue.
Taxability of sale of space or time for advertisement - HELD THAT:- The sale of space or time for advertisement is classifiable independently as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 and not under Business Support Service as confirmed by the Commissioner. Hence the demand of service tax under wrong classification of service is not sustainable in law - this issue is also in favour of the assessee.
Whether bus service plying between the Technopark and Kariyavattom is liable to service tax under tour operator service or not? - HELD THAT:- The assessee has submitted declarations from respective vendors confirming remittances of service tax by them under respective registration numbers and has also cited various decisions to buttress their argument that the services fall in the definition of input service as provided in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. But the learned Commissioner has not examined the documents submitted by the assessee and the various decisions relied upon by them in support of the fact that the impugned services fall in the definition of input service - the matter needs to be remanded back to the original authority for the purpose of verification of various documents, declarations and the letters issued by the vendors who have paid the service tax for various impugned services.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that levy of service tax on ‘Renting of Immovable Property’ was levied from 01/06/2007 and the appellant has been paying since then despite the fact that the same having been struck down as unconstitutional and thereafter the Finance Act, 2010 was introduced validation provisions with retrospective effect but the assessee has been paying service tax on ‘Renting of Immovable Property’ from the very beginning - extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts.
Interest and penalties - HELD THAT:- When the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of payment of interest does not arise and since there was no intention to evade service tax, penalties are also not imposable.
Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1094
CENVAT Credit - input services - services used in setting up their plants at the industrial township called Sri City - Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as amended with effect from 1-4-2011 - Department wants to deny them the benefit of the CENVAT credit on the ground that ‘services related to setting up of a factory’ which were specifically included prior to 1.4.2011 were no longer specifically included post 1.4.2011 - levy of interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The definition of ‘input service’ prior to 1.4.2011 had two parts- a main part of the definition and an inclusive part of the definition. This inclusive part specifically included the services availed for setting up the factory. After 1.4.2011, it has three parts- a main part, an inclusive part and an exclusive part. The services used for setting up the factory are neither in the inclusive part of the definition nor the exclusive part of the definition. Therefore, such services were neither specifically included nor were specifically excluded.
The term ‘manufacture’ itself is very wide and includes anything incidental or ancillary to manufacture - For a service to qualify as ‘input service’ under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 post 2011, the service in question need not be covered even by the very wide definition of manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. Any service which is used not only in manufacture but also ‘in relation to’ manufacture will also qualify as input service. The scope of input service is further enlarged with the expression whether directly or indirectly used in the definition of input service.
Although setting up the factory is not manufacture in itself, it is an activity directly in relation to manufacture. Without setting up the factory, there cannot be any manufacture. Services used in setting up the factory are, therefore, unambiguously covered as ‘input services’ under Rule 2 (l) (ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as they stood during the relevant period (post 1.4.2011). The mere fact that it is again not mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition makes no difference. Once it is covered in the main part of the definition of input service, unless it is specifically excluded under the exclusion part of the definition, the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on the input services used.
The impugned orders denying CENVAT credit and ordering its recovery along with interest and imposing penalties cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1092
Levy of Service tax - amount collected towards liquidated damages - agreement to tolerate breach of timelines stipulated in the contract - agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act - period involved in all the appeal is after 01.07.2012 - interest - penalty - HELD THAT:- There is substance in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that no service tax is payable on the amount collected towards liquidated damages as this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant in M/S SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR [2020 (12) TMI 912 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the view taken by the Principal Commissioner that penalty amount, forfeiture of earnest money deposit and liquidated damages have been received by the appellant towards “consideration” for “tolerating an act” leviable to service tax under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, it is not possible to sustain the view taken by the Commissioner that since the task was not completed within the time schedule, the appellant agreed to tolerate the same for a consideration in the form of liquidated damages, which would be subjected to service tax under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act.
Interest - penalty - HELD THAT:- As service tax could not be levied, the imposition of interest and penalty also cannot be sustained.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1090
Levy of service tax - liquidated damages recovered by the appellant for acts of default - delayed or deficient supplies by various suppliers - consideration for tolerance of an act or not - penalties - HELD THAT:- There is substance in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that no service tax is payable on the amount collected towards liquidated damages as this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant in M/S SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR [2020 (12) TMI 912 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the view taken by the Principal Commissioner that penalty amount, forfeiture of earnest money deposit and liquidated damages have been received by the appellant towards “consideration” for “tolerating an act” leviable to service tax under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act.
In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, it is not possible to sustain the view taken by the Commissioner that since BHEL did not complete the task within the time schedule, the appellant agreed to tolerate the same for a consideration in the form of liquidated damages, which would be subjected to service tax under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- As service tax could not be levied, the imposition of interest and penalty also cannot be sustained.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant
-
2021 (7) TMI 1088
Levy of service tax - Customs House Agent Services - business of freight forwarding wherein various activities in relation to transportation of goods in the course of import/export by sea and air undertaken - non-taxable service - non-taxable territory - Circular of the Board No. 197/7/2016-S.T dated 12/08/2016 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant is authorized to act as a CHA under Customs Housing Agent Licensing Regulations and has been granted a license. Further, it is found that the main revenue of the appellant comes from providing exclusive freight forwarding activity which accounts for substantial income of the appellant.
Perusal of the definition of ‘CHA’ as provided in the Finance Act as well as in Regulation, it is found that the scope of CHA service is restricted only to the licensed activities relating to either (a) entry or departure of conveyances at any Customs Station or (b) import or export of goods at any Customs Station. Further, it is found from the definition of ‘CHA’ Services that freight forwarding is an activity outside the scope of a CHA’s business, and freight forwarding is undertaken to get the goods transported from/to international boundaries to/from the Indian ports and the said activity is not in any way related to CHA’s business and CHA is not required to execute these services in the course of CHA’s business - further, as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 only ‘any amount’ that is ‘payable for the services provided or to be provided’ shall be included in consideration and any amount received is not related to the services provided cannot be included in Section 67.
There are force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that in case of export freight, no service tax is payable because the said service is non-taxable service and is provided in a non-taxable territory. It is also found that with regard to export freight, the Circular of the Board No. 197/7/2016-S.T dated 12/08/2016 amply clarifies this position.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The ingredients mentioned in terms of proviso to Section 73(1) has not been fulfilled by the Department and moreover in the present case, the appellant has a bona fide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax on the differential freight amount collected - the issue involved relates to interpretation of provisions of a statute and in such a situation, extended period cannot be invoked.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|
