Ocean freight tax on CIF imports invalid where liability was not clearly fastened on the importer, with refund allowed.

Service tax on ocean freight in CIF imports could not be fastened on the importer because the importer received goods, not the transportation service, and the charging provisions did not clearly impose liability on a third party. The impugned notifications and rules also failed for lack of a workable valuation basis in the importer's hands, and were treated as invalid. Amounts paid under that invalid levy were held refundable under the GST transitional refund framework, as retention by the Department was unjustified and the relevant credit provisions did not defeat the claim on the facts. Refund was therefore allowed and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service tax on ocean freight in CIF imports could validly be fastened on the importer under the impugned notifications and rules. (ii) Whether the amount paid pursuant to the impugned levy was refundable under the transitional refund provisions of the GST law.

Issue (i): Whether service tax on ocean freight in CIF imports could validly be fastened on the importer under the impugned notifications and rules.

Analysis: The levy was examined in the context of CIF and FOB transactions, the charging provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, and the machinery for valuation. The importer in a CIF contract received goods, not the transportation service, and the tax was sought to be imposed on a third party by implication rather than by clear words of the charging provision. The impugned notifications and rules also lacked a workable valuation basis in the hands of the importer. Reliance was placed on the earlier declaration that the ocean-freight levy notifications were ultra vires for want of legislative competency.

Conclusion: The levy on the importer in CIF transactions was not sustainable and the impugned notifications were treated as invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount paid pursuant to the impugned levy was refundable under the transitional refund provisions of the GST law.

Analysis: Since the amount had been paid under a levy found to be beyond the charging power, retention of the amount by the Department was held to be unjustified. The claim was treated as one covered by the GST transitional refund framework, particularly the provision requiring refund claims relating to amounts paid under the existing law to be paid in cash. The tribunal also noted that the relevant credit and transitional provisions did not defeat the refund claim on the facts found.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to refund of the amount paid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax on ocean freight in CIF imports cannot be imposed on the importer unless the charging provision clearly fastens liability on that person, and amounts paid under an invalid levy are refundable under the transitional refund mechanism.

---