Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2010-11/1092

Leviability of service tax on demurrage charges on storage of export cargo – Commissioner (Appeal) can exercise power of adjudicating authority in the absence of power of remand.

Case:Cochin International Airport Ltd v/s Commr of C. Ex., Cochin
 
Citation:2011 (21) STR 169 (Tri-Bang)
 
Issue: - Leviability of service tax on demurrage charges on storage of export cargo – Commissioner (Appeal) can exercise power of adjudicating authority in the absence of power of remand.
 
Brief Facts: - Appellant had allowed many exporters to store their export cargo in their premises during the material time. Appellant collected demurrage charges for the same. Demand of service tax was raised on the demurrage charges. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand which was raised under the head of ‘Storage and Warehousing’ services. Interest was also demanded and penalty was also imposed.
 
In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) held that service tax was not leviable on any demurrage collected on agricultural produce and accordingly, case was remanded for re-quantifying the service tax on demurrage charges collected in respect of goods other than agricultural produce. Interest liability was upheld but penalty was set aside by granting benefit of Section 80 to the appellant.
 
Against this decision, appeal has been filed before the Tribunal.
 
On remand, the Adjudicating Authority passed fresh order re-confirming the demand of service tax on Demurrage with interest. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) noted that no evidence was produced by the appellant before him as well as before the lower authority. Relying upon judgment in Karnataka State Beverages Corporation v/s Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2006 (4) STR 469 (Tri-Bangalore)] the matter was once again remanded to the original authority. The said decision is also challenged before the Tribunal. 
 
Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that in so far as storage of agricultural produce is concerned, Service tax I not leviable on any demurrage charges collected by the warehousing company inasmuch as the definition of “storage and warehousing”. Reliance was also made on Board Circular No. B11/1/2002-ST dated 01.08.2002.
 
The Tribunal further held that the Commissioner (Appeal) had rightly held in the first round of litigation that demurrage collected on agricultural produce was not chargeable to service tax. Therefore, pursuant to the remand order, it was not open to the Original Adjudicating Authority to demand service tax from the appellant in respect of such demurrage charges.
 
The remand order has been challenged on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand as held by the Apex Court in the case of MIL India Ltd v/s Commissioner [2007 (210) ELT 188 (SC)].
 
The Tribunal held that the orders of the Lower Authority are liable to be set aside on this sole ground. The Tribunal noted that the contention of the appellant that no service tax was payable on the demurrage collected on any stored goods and they had relied on the judgment given in Karnataka State Beverages Corporation v/s Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore. But this contention was not considered by the lower appellate authority.
 
The question that whether demurrage charges were to be included in the taxable value of storage and warehousing services was a fundamental question which went to the root of the dispute between the assessee and the Department and the Commissioner (Appeal) ought to have addressed the issue. On the basis of judgment given in MIL India Ltd it was held that the Commissioner (Appeal) can exercise the power of adjudicating authority also when the Commissioner (Appeal) has no power of remand.
 
Accordingly, matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeal). It was also noted that the question that whether demurrage charges were to be included in the taxable value of storage and warehousing services is no longer res integra and is settled in favour of the assessee.
 
Decision: -Appeals disposed off.
 

***********

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