Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 724 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - warehousing services to be used by the Food Corporation of India through M/s PUNGRAIN - agreement for providing of warehouse and other ancillary services such as security, insurance provision of main power, weigh bridge operation, etc. - whether classified under storage and warehousing services or under renting of immovable property services for agriculture use both prior to 01.07.2012? - exempt services or not? HELD THAT:- The perusal of the agreement and the monthly bill raised by the appellant leaves no doubt that the service provided by the appellant is not merely of renting of godown to M/s PUNGRAIN but it is along with the preservation, maintenance and security services, which subsequently are being used by Food Corporation of India (FCI) for storage of the food grains. This aspect regarding the storage of the food grains is also not disputed by the Department - It is the contention of the Department that the appellant has not directly provided the warehouse storage services, but it is through M/s PUNGRAIN to F.C.I. This issue has come up for decision before this Tribunal in the case of PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VERSUS CCE, CHANDIGARH [2018 (2) TMI 154 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] wherein it has been held that such services would be more appropriately covered under the category of ‘storage and warehousing services’ in terms of Section 65(105)(zza) of the Act. Thus, the service provided by the appellant is covered under the category of ‘storage and warehousing services’ and ‘renting of immoveable property services’ in terms of Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Act as defined in the impugned order. Demand pertaining to the period after 01.07.2012 - declared services or not - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has considered the services under the category of declared service under Section 66E of the Act, wherein at the Sl. No. (a) renting of immoveable property has been treated to be deemed service under the negative list. However, on perusal of the provisions, it is found that the services being rendered by the appellant would be more appropriately covered under the category of the services which are under the negative list vide entry no. 66D(v) - the impugned order is incorrect in holding the services rendered by the appellant in the category of declared service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|