Cargo booking brokerage as secondary service provider not taxable as steamer agent service under the alleged classification.

Brokerage or incentive received for booking cargo with shipping liners was not taxable as steamer agent service where the activity was only a facilitation arrangement for arranging cargo space. CESTAT Chennai treated the recipient as a secondary service provider, noted that the assessee's customs house agent role was distinct from the disputed booking activity, and relied on the Board circular and its earlier identical ruling to hold that no direct taxable service relationship existed under the alleged category. The service tax demand was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the brokerage or incentive received for booking cargo with shipping liners was taxable as steamer agent service or other taxable service.

Analysis: The incentive was received only for arranging space for cargo and not for rendering a service as a steamer agent. The activity was held to be a secondary service to the shipping lines, and the Board circular was relied on to hold that secondary service providers were not taxable. The Tribunal also followed its earlier decision on identical facts and noted that the assessee's role as a customs house agent was to serve importers and exporters, while the disputed activity was only a facilitation arrangement with no obligation to arrange transport through any particular shipping liner.

Conclusion: The brokerage or incentive amount could not be subjected to service tax under the alleged category, and the demand was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts received merely for facilitating cargo booking as a secondary service provider, without a direct taxable service relationship of the alleged kind, are not chargeable to service tax in the absence of a legally sustainable classification.

---