TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Freight charges for air and ocean transportation are cargo movement payments, not taxable services under Section 78</h1> CESTAT Chennai held that freight charges collected for air and ocean transportation constitute payment for cargo movement, not taxable services. Following ... Levy of service tax - Business Support Service - air freight and ocean freight charges collected for the period prior to 01.07.2012 and for the period after 01.07.2012 - extended period of limitation - penalty u/s 78 - HELD THAT:- The freight charges are collected for transportation of goods and not for providing any other service. In fact, from the activity that has taken place, it is nothing but payment of freight for transportation of cargo in airlines as well as shipping lines. The issue as to whether the air freight charges / ocean freight charges as well as mark up is subject to levy of service tax for the period prior to 1.7.2012 has been decided by the Tribunal in various cases. The Tribunal in the case of Geodis Overseas Private Ltd. Vs CST Chennai [2022 (6) TMI 1085 - CESTAT CHENNAI] has considered the issue and held that the demand cannot sustain. The demand of service tax for the period prior to 1.7.2012 as well as for the period post-1.7.2012 cannot sustain and requires to be set aside - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the air freight charges/ocean freight charges along with mark-up collected by the appellant is subject to levy of service tax.2. Whether the activity of the appellant would fall under 'Business Support Service' prior to 1.7.2012 and under Section 65B (44) of the Act for the period post 1.7.2012.Summary:Issue 1: Levy of Service Tax on Air Freight/Ocean Freight Charges with Mark-UpThe appellant, engaged in various services including transportation of export cargo, was scrutinized for non-payment of service tax on ocean and air freight charges collected. The department argued that these charges were taxable under Business Support Service (BSS) before 01.07.2012 and under Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994 thereafter. The appellant contended that their activity involved trading in cargo space, which does not fall under the definition of BSS. They emphasized that the freight charges are for transportation of goods, not for any other service, and thus should not be subject to service tax. The Tribunal, referencing multiple precedents, agreed that the activity of buying and selling cargo space is a principal-to-principal transaction and not a service, thereby not subject to service tax. The Tribunal cited decisions in cases like Greenwich Meridian Logistics (I) Pvt Ltd and others to support this view.Issue 2: Classification of Services under Business Support ServiceThe appellant argued that their activities do not fit within the definition of BSS as per Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994, which is aimed at taxing outsourcing services. They relied on the principle of noscitur-a-socis and various judicial precedents to argue that their activities are not related to managing distribution and logistics as defined under BSS. The Tribunal supported this argument, stating that the appellant's activities are more akin to trading in cargo space rather than providing BSS. It was noted that the appellant's role as a freight forwarder, buying and selling cargo space, does not constitute a taxable service under the Act.Extended Period of Limitation and PenaltyThe appellant contended that they were under a bona fide belief that their activities were not taxable and thus the extended period of limitation should not apply. They argued that the department failed to prove deliberate suppression of facts. The Tribunal agreed, citing that the figures were derived from publicly available documents and there was no willful intent to evade tax. The Tribunal also noted that for a subsequent period, a similar demand was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the department did not appeal against that decision.ConclusionThe Tribunal concluded that the demand for service tax on air freight/ocean freight charges along with mark-up for the period prior to 1.7.2012 as well as post-1.7.2012 cannot be sustained. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court)
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
