TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had constructed their own Jetty at Ranpar in Ratnagiri Dist. and was operating from there in the capacity as an importer and importing their raw materials for the use in the manufacture of the final products. The appellant had also constructed and commissioned 2 LPG gas storage tanks and associated equipments for handling Liquefied Petroleum Gas in order to use the same in their manufacture of final products. Some where down the line, appellants found out that the said facility of LPG storage tanks and associated equipments is not beneficial to them and hence entered into an agreement with M/s. Bharat Petroleum Coronation Ltd. (BPCL) for leasing/licensing LPG tanks. The t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ship and transfer it to the storage tanks. This activity would amount providing of warehousing/storage service to BPCL. It is his submission that the appellant had given fire protection system to the whole LPG infrastructure facilities, providing supply of Air, Water, Power, Nitrogen Gas etc. to BPCL in order to keep the tanks functioning. It is his submission that the agreement provides for the services to be rendered by the appellant to BPCL would in itself indicate that the appellant was service provided as storage and warehousing keeper. 5. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant is providing services of storage and warehousing. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te as per design calculations. (iv) Capacity to load LPG @ 12.5. (twelve and a half) MTPH in a road tanker in each of the road tanker bays. It is clearly understood that FIL's responsibility is limited to pumping LPG from BPCL's ship from Finolex Jetty into FIL LPG Tank. All sub sequent operations, including safe storage of LPG in FIL LPG Tanks shall be BPCL's responsibility". (Emphasis Supplied) On the holistic reading of the entire agreement between BPCL and the appellant we find that the appellant had agreed to give on rent the entire facility of LPG storage tank with associated machinery to BPCL, for them to store and distribute LPG gas. We find that the agreement also specifically provides that the appellant will unload the LPG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larification, it is clear that the storage owner, if he rents out the storage premises does not get covered as service provider of storage and warehousing. Appellant in this case is the owner of the two LPG tanks and has only rented out the premises along with the necessary and associated machineries. It is seen from records and agreement that the appellant had not accepted the security of the goods, stacking of the goods or loading or unloading of the goods in the storage area. The unloading of LPG from the ship and transfer by pipeline to LPG tanks, by any stretch of imagination cannot fall under the category of unloading of the goods in the storage area considering the fact that the characteristic of the product, (which is being unloaded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
