https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448179 The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appellant's appeal for refund of service tax wrongly paid on ocean freight under reverse charge mechanism. The revenue rejected the refund claiming the appellant was the service recipient since the bill of entry was filed in their name. However, the tribunal followed the Gujarat HC decision in SAL Steel Ltd. v. Union of India, which struck down Notifications 15/2017-ST and 16/2017-ST as ultra vires, making importers liable for service tax on ocean transportation services even in CIF contracts. Consequently, the appellant could not be held liable for service tax on ocean freight. en-us Mon, 04 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jan 2024 08:35:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448179 The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appellant's appeal for refund of service tax wrongly paid on ocean freight under reverse charge mechanism. The revenue rejected the refund claiming the appellant was the service recipient since the bill of entry was filed in their name. However, the tribunal followed the Gujarat HC decision in SAL Steel Ltd. v. Union of India, which struck down Notifications 15/2017-ST and 16/2017-ST as ultra vires, making importers liable for service tax on ocean transportation services even in CIF contracts. Consequently, the appellant could not be held liable for service tax on ocean freight. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 04 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448179