Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1285 - CESTAT HYDERABADStorage and warehousing services - appellants had been appointed as custodian of imported edible oils under Customs Act, 1962 and had rented/leased out their storage tanks in Kakinada for storage of the imported edible oils to those importers who availed the facility of storing imported oils in these storage tanks - case of appellant is that they are only renting out their storage facilities and is not covered under ‘storage and warehousing services’. Held that:- On perusal of agreement and invoices raised by the appellant on M/s AAL, it is noticed that appellant was charging an amount as tank rental charges from M/s AAL. It is also seen from the records that M/s AAL have charged cargo handling charges from the appellant for storing and handling their consignments of edible oils which are stored in the said tanks - There is nothing on record to show that appellant herein had besides collecting rental charges from M/s AAL had rendered other services and collected any further amount. Similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Finolex Industries Ltd (supra) (wherein, one of us, M.V.Ravindran was a member) [2007 (5) TMI 27 - CESTAT,MUMBAI] has held that mere collection of an amount for leasing of the tanks for the usage of storage tanks cannot be considered as providing of storage and warehousing services - The said decision of the Tribunal was sought to be distinguished by the Learned Commissioner on the ground that M/s BPCL is user of the tanks, hence, the facts are different. In our view, such distinguishing factor may not carry the case of the Revenue any further. The amount collected by the appellant herein would not qualify for taxing under ‘storage and warehousing services - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|