TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the same to the customer’s premises, CFS charges, CHA charges, Fumigation charges etc. Reliance placed in the Apex Court decision in the case of UOI Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that service tax is to be paid only on the services actually provided by the service provider - in the present case, amounts reimbursed to the appellant for various miscellaneous services in India as well as abroad which were contracted by the appellant on behalf of the customers cannot be levied to service tax - demand set aside. Amounts recovered by the appellant from the customers towards ocean freight payable to the foreign shipping lines - Held that:- The levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 Services provided abroad 2,00,45,536 2 Freight elements 57,05,644 3 Discount 21,90851 4 Transport 57,17,712 5 Others 45,15,884 Total 3,81,75,627 2. Similar differences were noticed by the Revenue for the entire period of dispute which were not offered for payment of service tax. Revenue was of the view that the amounts are liable to payment of service tax under the category of BAS falling under Section 65 (19) of the Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above arguments of the appellant did not find favour with the adjudicating authority. After due process of verification, the entire demand of service tax covered by the three SCNs as above was confirmed totally amounting to ₹ 65,29,558/- for the period October 2003 to September 2007 and ₹ 1,05,67,260/- for the period October 2007 to March 2009. In addition, demand of interest under Section 75 of the Act and various penalties were also imposed under Sections 76, 78 and also under Service Tax Rules, 1994. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeals have been filed which are disposed of by this common order. 5. In this background, we heard the Ld. Advocate, Shri N. Viswanthan for the appellants and the Ld. AR, Shri S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd., in Final Order No. 43161/2017 dated 18.12.2017. Finally he submitted that the impugned order may be set aside. 7. The Ld. AR justified the impugned order. He sought to distinguish the case of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Diamond Shipping. He submitted that the said decision was rendered in the category of CHA services whereas the impugned order deals with steamer agents services. 8. We have heard both sides and perused the records. 9.1 The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the appellant is that most of the amounts received by the appellant for which no service tax has been paid are in the nature of reimbursements by the customers to cover the expenses incurred by the appellant for activities carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce‟ and the valuation of tax service cannot be anything more or less than the consideration paid as quid pro qua for rendering such a service. 25. This position did not change even in the amended Section 67 which was inserted on May 1, 2006. Sub-section (4) of Section 67 empowers the rule making authority to lay down the manner in which value of taxable service is to be determined. However, Section 67(4) is expressly made subject to the provisions of sub-section (1). Mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 67 is manifest, as noted above, viz., the service tax is to be paid only on the services actually provided by the service provider. As observed by the Apex Court above, service tax is to be paid only on the services actually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to any taxable service. Regarding tax liability of the appellant under BAS, we note that the Tribunal in the case of Bhuvaneswari Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2007 (08) STR 167 (Tri.-Bang.), held that the activity of rendering services of arranging shipment of export cargo and negotiating the same with shipping lines on behalf of the clients will not fall under tax liability. The Tribunal held that there is no promotion or marketing services in such an arrangement. The respondent is getting certain amount out of freight collected by the shipping lines. We note there is no service on behalf of third person in such arrangement. By following the above decision, we set aside the demand of service tax made on the portion of fre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
