9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent observed following shortcomings: (i) During the period 01.05.2003 to 16.07.2003, the appellant has not paid service tax on the value of services rendered on account of ground rent of empty containers, resulting into the non-payment of service tax of Rs.1,02,416/-. (ii) The noticees were charging for the services rendered in respect of handling of empty containers but have not paid the service tax for the same. Resultantly, the service tax of Rs.6,14,860/- was found as not paid during the period August, 2002 to December, 2003. (iii) The appellant was also observed to pay their service tax liability for December, 2003 after 25th of the following month. Accordingly, amount at the rate of 15% interest per annum amounting to Rs.1,264/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.95,079/-) as service tax in respect of handling of empty containers during the impugned period was held correct and the demand of balance service tax was set aside. However, with respect to the second issue of demand rejecting the activity of appellant as that of Storage and Warehousing Services, the authority, after discussion of this activity has confirmed the demand. The appeal against the said order has been disposed of vide the impugned order under challenge i.e. Order-in-Appeal No. 32/93/2017 dated 24.10.2017, vide which the findings of original adjudicating authority have been upheld except that imposition of penalty amounting to Rs.63,663/- has been set aside. Still being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling of empty container from the CONCOR warehouse to the outbound vehicle are collected from the shipping line and no service tax has been paid on the activity considering the same to be movement of the empty container. 3.1 It is submitted that the department has erroneously relied upon Circular No. 60/9/2003 dated 10.07.2023 to assume that impugned activity of handling of empty containers outside the storage area was covered under storage and warehousing of the containers. With these submissions the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these submissions, learned Departmental Representative has mentioned that the issue involved in the present appeal is about non-payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter. We observe that subsequent to remand, the benefit of cum tax has been given to the appellant, accordingly, the entire demand on the aforementioned first issue was absolutely dropped. However, the demand on second count is confirmed holding the activity done by the appellant to be called as storage and warehousing services. We observe that there is no denial about discharge of service tax by the appellant with respect to handling of empty containers which were stored in the appellant's area or were warehouse. The demand is with respect to such empty containers which were handled prior reaching the appellant's storage area/warehouse. The issue therefore is as to whether the said activity can be called as the part of taxable service "Sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
