Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (8) TMI 1104 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - Commission/brokerage received from Shipping Lines - Cargo handling services - Difference on ocean freight collected and paid to shipping lines - Director Sitting fees - GTA services. Director Sitting fees - HELD THAT - The Appellant has accepted the demand of service tax of Rs.2, 96, 020/- confirmed in the impugned order on the Director Sitting Fees and contested the remaining demands. Regarding the demand of Rs.2, 96, 020/- confirmed on the Director Sitting Fees it is observed that the Appellant has already paid this amount but not paid the interest. Accordingly the demand of service tax upheld along with interest confirmed in the impugned order on this count. As there is no suppression of fact with intention to evade the tax established in this case no penalty is imposable on the Appellant on this demand confirmed and upheld. Commission/brokerage received from Shipping Lines - HELD THAT - There is no taxable service rendered by the appellant to the shipping lines and the commission earned is on account of booking of cargo with the shipping lines over the years. This amount is not liable for service tax under the category of business auxiliary service as there is no agreement of commission agent between the Appellant and shipping lines - This view has been taken by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kafila Hospitality Travels Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (3) TMI 773 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) wherein it has been held that the commission earned for selling of space by the shipping lines is not liable to service tax under the category of business auxiliary service - the demand confirmed in the impugned order on this count is not sustainable and is set aside. Cargo handling services - HELD THAT - It is observed that the demand of service tax has been confirmed by the ld. adjudicating authority on the amounts received by the appellant as reimbursable expenses during the course of provision of CHA services. It is found that the such expenses received by the appellant are related to AD Code Registration charges Custom Clearance charges Port charges EDI Registration charges AWB fee etc. which were nothing but reimbursement of actual expenses and hence they cannot form part of consideration for levy of service tax - reliance placed on the decision of CESTAT New Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Karam Freight Movers 2017 (3) TMI 785 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein it has been held that the amounts reimbursed on actual basis are not to be included for Service Tax purpose - the demand confirmed in the impugned order on account of cargo handling service is not sustainable and is set aside. Difference on ocean freight collected and paid to shipping lines - HELD THAT - There is no finding in the impugned order to substantiate this allegation. From the records submitted by the Appellant it is found that the amount involved in this regard are the profit earned by the Appellant from ocean freight. Further it is observed that the issue of taxability of profit earned on ocean freight is no longer res integra as the same issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Tierra Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2023 (9) TMI 1141 - CESTAT KOLKATA - thus the demand confirmed in the impugned order on this count is not sustainable and the same is set aside. GTA services - Transportation charges as recipient of services - HELD THAT - The invoice has been raised on the Appellant for transportation of the goods and it has been categorically mentioned in the said invoice that the Service Tax is to be paid by the Party. Accordingly in respect of this invoice the liability of payment of Service Tax on the freight amount of Rs.4, 20, 000/- is on the Appellant. Therefore the Appellant is liable to pay Service Tax on this invoice on the freight amount of Rs.4, 20, 000/- under the category of GTA Service along with interest. GTA services - HELD THAT - The services provided by the various local truck owners are not related to goods transportation service as there was no consignment note issued by such persons to the Appellant. The goods were moved on the consignment note issued by the Appellant to their customers and on the value of which the customers of the Appellant were liable to pay service tax as recipients of service. Thus in this regard it is held that the Appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the category of GTA service - demand set aside. Appeal disposed off.
|