Service tax cannot be levied without consideration between parties under Sections 66 and 67 Finance Act 1994

The CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service tax cannot be levied without consideration being involved between parties. The case involved classification of cargo handling services for sulphuric acid handling. The tribunal found that since no service was provided by the appellant to the other party and no consideration was received, the essential ingredients under Sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 for charging service tax were absent. Following precedents including Commissioner of CGST vs. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd. upheld by the SC, the tribunal ruled that consideration is mandatory for service tax levy. The department's demand based on notional value was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax on Cargo Handling Charges for the export of Sulphuric Acid.
2. Whether the valuation adopted by the Department was correct.
3. Whether the demand was time-barred due to the extended period invoked by the Department.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay Service Tax on Cargo Handling Charges:
The appellant was engaged in providing various services including port services, cargo handling services, and storage & warehousing services. For the export of Sulphuric Acid, the appellant had stopped charging Cargo Handling Charges of Rs. 50 per MT from M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited (HIL) post 01.03.2006 due to a mutual agreement. The reason was that HIL had installed a pipeline for handling Sulphuric Acid, and the appellant's involvement was minimal. The Central Excise Department, during audits, observed that the appellant was not collecting these charges, leading to the issuance of show cause notices alleging additional consideration in the hands of the appellant.

The appellant argued that no service was provided, and hence no consideration was involved. They relied on several judgments, including Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise vs. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd., where the Supreme Court upheld that in the absence of consideration, no service tax could be demanded. The Tribunal agreed, stating that an activity must involve consideration to be taxable, as per Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. Correctness of Valuation Adopted by the Department:
The appellant contended that the valuation adopted by the Department was incorrect and that Rule 3 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, was not applicable. They cited the Tribunal's judgment in CCE vs. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. and argued that the demand under 'Cargo Handling Services' was unsustainable as the service should be classified under 'Port Services'. The Tribunal noted that the value of taxable services should be the gross amount charged, as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. Since no service was provided and no amount was charged, the valuation adopted by the Department was incorrect.

3. Time-Barred Demand:
The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as the first audit was conducted in 2011, but the show cause notices were issued much later, invoking the extended period. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail but focused on the absence of consideration, which rendered the demand unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that since no service was provided and no consideration was received, the necessary conditions under Sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, for charging service tax were not fulfilled. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The Tribunal relied on several judgments, including Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Bhayana Builders P Ltd. and Murli Realtors Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Pune-II, to support their decision that service tax cannot be charged in the absence of consideration.

Pronouncement:
The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 01.07.2024.

---