Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Publish Date: 08 Feb, 2010
Print   |    |  Comment

Looking Beyond the Things: Outward Freight

 

Looking Beyond the Things: Outward Freight

Article Prepared By:

CA Pradeep Jain and

Siddharth Rutiya

 

Transport of Goods by Road services came into effect from 01.01.2005 and lead to great controversies among the industries as a whole. This service was introduced to include the Transportation services under the scope of Service tax levy. After the inclusion of such service under tax net and simultaneously, looking to the provisions of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 litigations arose on many subjects including on the subject as to whether CENVAT of Outward freight will be allowed to the manufacture or not ?  There are lot of judgements available on this issue. The larger bench has decided the issue in case of ABB Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore [2009] 21 STT 77 (Bang. CESTAT) (LB)].  But the stay against the same has been awarded by Karnataka High Court. But Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed the credit in case of Ambuja Cement Ltd. V. Union of India & Ors. [2009 (236) ELT 0431 (P&H)] following the Board circular no 97/6/2007-ST Dtd. 23.08.2007.

 

A lot has been written on this issue. The dispute is still not over. We are not writing on this issue in this article. We are seeing this whole issue from another angle. One of our clients approached us and told that he would not like to go into litigation and on the other side he does not want to lose this benefit. We should plan the things in such a way we should be benefited from the whole situation. This has inspired us to write this article.

 

Legal Provisions

 

Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provides for the definition of “Input Service” as any service used by manufacturer and includes outward transportation upto the place of removal. The relevant portion of Section 2(l) is produced as under: -

 

(l) "input service" means any service,-

(i)         used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or

(ii)        used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products, upto the place of removal and includes ........... outward transportation upto the place of removal;

 

Section 4(3)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for the definition of “Place of Removal” to mean either of the following: -

 

1.      A factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of excisable goods; or

 

2.      A warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty; from where such goods are removed; or

 

3.      A depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory,

 

Hence a combined reading of the above two definitions makes the scope of CENVAT Credit narrower as regards to the CENVAT on Outward transportation services for a manufacturer, where he pays the service tax on outward transportation beyond the place of removal. This escorts to the path towards the tax planning in such a way that the cost to either parties i.e. manufacturer as well as the buyer of the final product, is minimized.

 

Various prospects and their plannings: -

 

We in this article have bifurcated the overall situation into two broad categories: -

 

I.)                 When CENVAT Credit is availed by the buyer of the Goods; and

 

II.)              When CENVAT Credit is not availed by the buyer of the Goods.

 

 

I.)        When CENVAT Credit is availed by the buyer of the Goods: -

 

In this situation we have categorized those buyers who after purchasing the goods from the principal manufacturer shall avail the CENVAT Credit. The various possible circumstances and possibilities of tax planning under them are as under: -

 

(A) When the Outward Freight is to be paid by the Buyer of the Goods: -

 

In this circumstance the liability to pay the Outward Freight is on the buyer of the goods as per the sale agreement or otherwise. As Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1944 provides that the person liable for paying service tax is the person who pays or is liable to pay freight, then in such a circumstance the buyer of the goods will be pay the freight to the transporter as well as service tax. He will be allowed to avail the CENVAT of service tax paid on such Transportation services as these will account for inward transportation services for him. Relevant portion of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1944 is produced as under: -

 

“(v) in relation to taxable service provided by a goods transport agency, where the consignor or consignee of goods is,-

 

(a) any factory registered under or governed by the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948);


(b) any company formed or registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);


(c) any corporation established by or under any law;


(d) any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India;


(e) any co-operative society established by or under any law;


(f) any dealer of excisable goods, who is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the rules made thereunder; or


(g) any body corporate established, or a partnership firm registered, by or under any law,

 

any person who pays or is liable to pay freight either himself or through his agent for the transportation of such goods by road in a goods carriage;”

 

But this is most ideal situation and everyone knows it. The issue of outward freight arises only when the supplier of goods makes the payment to transport agency and also the service tax on the same.

 

(B) When the Outward Freight is charged, in the Excise Invoice, from the Buyer: -

 

In this circumstance the supplier manufacturer shall pay the outward freight and service tax on the outward freight. He should charge the same in the Excise Invoice from his buyer along with the service tax. In this option the tax burden on the manufacturer shall reduce as he will be charging the same from the buyer and there will simultaneously be no cost effect to the buyer also, as he would avail the CENVAT of such service tax on the basis of said Excise Invoice. The Excise invoice under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules is a valid duty paying document as per Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules.

 

However, the caution to be taken in this case is that the manufacturer should mention the Freight and Service tax thereon separately, in such a way that this is shown separately. For example the face of the invoice should contain as follows: -

 

 

 

Assessable value of Goods                                                     XX

 

Excise duty @ __ %                                       X

Education Cess @ 2%                                                X

Sec. & Higher Education Cess @ 1%                        X                                 XX

                                                                                                ___   

                                    Sub Total                                            XX

 

Freight Charges                                                                       XX

Service tax @ __%                                                     X

Education Cess @ 2%                                                X

Sec. & Higher Education Cess @ 1%                        X                                 XX

 

                                    Grand Total                                                     XX

 

 

(C) When the Outward Freight is paid by the Manufacturer as an agent of Buyer: -

 

This is one more option where the service tax liability shifts to buyer of goods. In this circumstance the manufacturer shall pay the Freight amount of the outward freight as an agent of Buyer. For this purpose, he should have an agreement with the buyer that he is paying the freight to the transporter as an agent of buyer. The goods transport agency should write clearly in his consignment note that the liability to pay service tax is on consignee of the goods. Following this situation, although the freight shall be paid by the Supplier Manufacturer but the liability to pay service tax thereon shall be conferred upon the Buyer as per Rule 2(1) (d) (v) of Service Tax Rules, 1944. This is because Rule 2(1) (d) (v) provides that the liability to pay service tax is on “any person who pays or is liable to pay freight either himself or through his agent for the transportation”.

 

This is also one of the best methods wherein the liability to pay service tax is conferred on the buyer but the transportation charges are paid by the manufacturer himself. Now, as the buyer is operating under Cenvat Credit, he will get the credit of service tax paid on the basis of GAR-7 challan which is a specified document for taking credit.

 

II.)      When CENVAT Credit is not availed by the buyer of the Goods: -

 

In this situation we have categorized those buyers who after purchasing the goods from the supplier manufacturer are not availing the CENVAT Credit because of varied reasons, including either the buyer is a SSI unit, or is covered under any area based exemption, or manufactures such goods which are totally exempt etc. The various possible circumstances and possibilities of tax planning under this category are as under: -

 

(A) When Outward Freight is charged in the Invoice and Excise duty is collected on it: -

 

As we know that the buyer of the goods is not availing CENVAT credit then we have an option wherein we can charge the freight in the Invoice and collect the duty of excise on the aggregate value including such freight. However, following this option the manufacturer shall have to concurrently fulfil three conditions in terms of the sale contract /agreement as per Circular no. 97/08/2007- ST, dt. 23/08/2007, which has also been upheld in the case of Ambuja Cement Ltd. by Punjab and Haryana High Court [2009 (14) S.T.R. 3 (P & H)], as under: -

 

(i)           the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step;

 

(ii)         the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; and

 

(iii)       the freight charges were an integral part of the price of the goods.

 

Under this situation the cost to the buyer will increase by the Excise duty amount paid on the Freight amount but consecutively the cost of service tax paid on the Freight will be avoided as it will be availed as CENVAT Credit by the manufacturer. But it is prone to litigation. We have come across a situation where the department has taken the help of general terms and conditions printed on invoice to disallow the credit. The condition written was “the liability of supplier of goods ceases when the goods are delivered to transporter”. In actual, all the damages and shortfall in goods were borne by the buyer only. But the department said that the general terms and conditions printed on invoice are clear and going against the board circular. Thus, this situation is prone to litigation and department can find ways to disallow the credit.

 

(B) When Service tax on Outward Freight is paid and borne by Manufacturer himself: -

 

Under this category the Outward Freight will be paid by the manufacturer and hence the service tax thereon shall also be paid by the manufacturer himself. This will lead to an overall cost burden of service tax paid on such freight as the manufacturer will not be able to avail the CENVAT Credit.

 

The excise duty is payable on transaction value defined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act. If the delivery of goods is at a place other than depot then the actual or average cost of transportation is not includible in transaction value. Now, to get the benefit, the outward transport charges should not be included in the transaction value of excisable goods. Thus, this is suggested that duty should be paid on sale value of goods excluding the transportation charges. These charges are shown in the invoice after charging Cenvat duty. As such, the excise duty will not be paid on the freight component.

 

Thus under this second situation where the buyer is not availing the CENVAT Credit the best option is the one wherein the Service tax on Outward Freight is paid and borne by Manufacturer himself as the tax burden on Freight is only 2.5% of Freight amount and in general the excise duty liability is around 8 %. Henceforth going for option B in this category the manufacturer will save around 5.5% of tax amount, which will reduce the cost to the buyer as well.

 

We have applied our mind and tried to do the tax planning on service tax liability on outward freight. We have tried to analysis the issue of cenvat credit on outward freight from different angle. We hope that this will be definitely help the manufacturers to take the benefit without going into litigation. But we are sure that the other options will also be available. Hence, we seek the comments from other authors also.

 

***********

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com