Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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