Freight margin on outbound shipments exempt from service tax under Rule 10 of Place of Provision Rules

The CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal regarding service tax on clearing and forwarding agent services. The tribunal held that the appellant operated on a principal-to-principal basis with carriers, not as an agent, thus falling under the exclusion clause of Rule 2(f) of Place of Provision (POP) Rules. For outbound shipments, the place of provision of service was determined to be outside India as per Rule 10 of POP Rules, making the freight margin recovered from customers exempt from service tax. The impugned order-in-appeal was set aside as without merit.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the demand of service tax by the department u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the appellant under the category of Business Auxiliary Service for retaining a differential amount of freight, and the classification of ocean freight as a taxable service based on the place of provision of service and destination of goods.

Issue 1: Demand of service tax u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994:
The appellant firm, registered for service tax under the category of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service,' faced a demand for service tax by the department due to a positive difference in expenses incurred by the appellant compared to the freight charged from customers. The department issued a show cause notice demanding service tax of Rs. 3,93,172/- along with interest and penal provisions. The appellant contended that no service tax is payable on ocean freight and relied on Board Circulars and Tribunal decisions to support their argument.

Issue 2: Classification of ocean freight as a taxable service:
The appellant argued that ocean freight for export cargo falls outside the taxable territory of India, making it non-taxable. They referred to an educational guide and Tribunal decisions to support their stance. The department reiterated the findings of the impugned order-in-appeal. The Tribunal considered the CBEC Circular which distinguished between a freight forwarder acting as an agent or a principal in providing transportation services. It was noted that the appellant entered into agreements with carriers on a principal to principal basis, not as an agent, and thus was excluded from the category of an intermediary service provider.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the impugned order-in-appeal lacked merit and set it aside, allowing the appeal of the appellant. The judgment emphasized that the place of provision of service of transportation of goods, especially for outbound shipments, determines the applicability of service tax on freight margins. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 14.05.2024 by the members of the Tribunal.

---