2020 (3) TMI 749 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, rejecting service tax demand for Clearing and Forwarding Agent

Commr. of S. Tax, Kolkata Versus M/s. Naresh Kumar & Co. (Vice-Versa)

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for service tax on their activities as a Clearing and Forwarding Agent. The ... Levy of Service Tax - clearing and forwarding services - It is the case of the assessee that these activities do not amount to rendering “clearing and forwarding service” as they do not physically handle or receive or store the goods/coal, but only do liaisoning, supervision and co-ordination. Not agreeing with the arguments of the assessee, the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. COAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RANGE KOLKATA – I [2015 (5) TMI 249 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the appellant assessee is not liable to pay service tax. The assessee is not liable to pay service tax on the services rendered by them - demand set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues involved:Confirmation of demand of Service Tax on activities under the head 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services' under Section 65(105)(j) read with Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:1. Issue of Demand Confirmation:The appeal was against the confirmation of the demand of Service Tax on the appellant's activities as a Clearing and Forwarding Agent. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand but dropped a portion due to computation issues. The Revenue appealed against the dropped demand, while the appellant argued that no service tax was payable by them at all. The appellant's services included liaison, supervision, monitoring, and coordination related to coal transportation, which the Revenue claimed fell under the category of clearing and forwarding services. However, the appellant contended that they did not physically handle, receive, or store goods, but only provided liaisoning services. The Adjudicating Authority held the appellant liable to pay Service Tax.2. Interpretation of Activities:The appellant cited a Supreme Court judgment and a Tribunal Mumbai decision in their favor, arguing that their activities did not qualify as clearing and forwarding services. They highlighted that liaisoning services were not covered under the definition of clearing and forwarding services. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court decision and its own previous ruling, found that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax as their activities did not meet the criteria of clearing and forwarding services. The Tribunal emphasized that taxing provisions should be strictly interpreted, and in the absence of evidence supporting taxability, activities beyond the legal mandate should not be taxed.3. Judgment and Conclusion:The Tribunal, based on previous decisions and legal principles, ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the entire demand of service tax. The Tribunal held that the essential requirement of clearing coal from collieries was absent in the appellant's case, and they were only providing liaisoning services. As the issue had been settled in the appellant's favor in a previous case, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected. The judgment provided consequential benefits to the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the appellant's activities in relation to clearing and forwarding services, considering legal precedents and the absence of essential requirements for taxability. The judgment emphasized the importance of strict interpretation of taxing provisions and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for service tax.