TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether service tax demand raised on freight charges was sustainable when the demand was made on a presumptive basis without proper scrutiny of the freight components and the refund already granted under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009; (ii) Whether service tax on security charges could again be demanded from the appellant when the service provider had already discharged tax on the entire value; (iii) Whether the demand on commission paid on export was sustainable when the record did not support the assumption that the payment was made to a foreign commission agent.
Issue (i): Whether service tax demand raised on freight charges was sustainable when the demand was made on a presumptive basis without proper scrutiny of the freight components and the refund already granted under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009.
Analysis: The demand was founded on the assumption that the entire freight expenditure reflected in the balance sheet was taxable. The record showed that the freight figure included different components, including inward transportation and outward transportation from factory to container depot and from container depot to port. The Tribunal also noted that part of the freight related to services covered by the refund notification already acted upon by the Revenue. On that basis, the demand was treated as having been raised without proper verification of the taxable value.
Conclusion: The freight-based demand was not sustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether service tax on security charges could again be demanded from the appellant when the service provider had already discharged tax on the entire value.
Analysis: The appellant showed that tax on the full value of security services had already been paid by the service provider. Once tax had been discharged on the same value, a further demand on the appellant under reverse charge would result in duplication of tax recovery. The Tribunal therefore accepted that the same tax could not be demanded again from the recipient.
Conclusion: The security-charges demand was not sustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the demand on commission paid on export was sustainable when the record did not support the assumption that the payment was made to a foreign commission agent.
Analysis: The demand on commission rested on the presumption that the commission was paid to a foreign entity and that such entity had no office in India. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not scrutinised the relevant records and had proceeded only on assumption. Since the factual basis for the demand was not established, the demand could not stand.
Conclusion: The commission-based demand was not sustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable in all material respects, and the entire demand was set aside with consequential relief to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: A service tax demand cannot be sustained when it is founded on presumptions without proper scrutiny of the underlying transactions, especially where the same taxable value has already suffered tax or is covered by a refund mechanism.
TaxTMI 
