Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/2051

Whether service tax leviable on storage of tanks in which helium gas is imported when excise duty already paid on gas including tank?

Case:- INOX AIR PRODUCTS LTD VsCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD

Citation:-2013-TIOL-1858-CESTAT-MUM

Brief facts:-The demand was confirmed on the ground that the applicants are receiving storage and warehousing service from the foreign service provider hence the applicants are liable to pay service tax on the reverse charge mechanism. In respect of appeal No. ST/87630/13, the demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicants are providing storage and warehousing service to their client hence the applicants are liable to pay service tax in this regard. The applicants were importing helium gas which is to be transported under a controlled temperature. The helium gas is imported in the containers and further appropriate customs duty is paid on the helium gas and thereafter the helium gas imported is transported to the factory of the applicants and the imported helium gas is used in the manufacture of other gases. The tank was subsequently re-exported within six months.

Appellant’s contention:-The contention of the applicants was that the applicants were importing helium gas which is to be transported under a controlled temperature. The helium gas is imported in the containers and further appropriate customs duty is paid on the helium gas and thereafter the helium gas imported is transported to the factory of the applicants and the imported helium gas is used in the manufacture of other gases. The tank was subsequently re-exported within six months. The contention was that the tank was for storage of helium gas and the applicants are not receiving any storage or warehousing service from the foreign service provider hence the demand is not sustainable.
In respect of the demand as provider of service of storage and warehousing, the contention is that the gases which are kept by the applicants are cleared on payment of appropriate duty including the storage charges of Rs.35,000/- per month. The gas is cleared in the tanks and the tanks were stored at the premises of the applicants and the applicants are receiving Rs.35,000/- per month as a rental of the tank. On the rental of the tank, the applicants are paying appropriate excise duty along with VAT. The applicants produced copies of invoices under which excise duty is paid on rental charges. The applicants relied upon the earlier stay order dated 4.6.2012 in appeal No. ST/214/12 - (2012-TIOL-1077-CESTAT-MUM), where the Tribunal allowed the waiver of dues which were confirmed on the same grounds. In view of the fact that the applicants are paying excise duty and VAT on the rental of the tanks, the demand is not sustainable.

Respondent’s contention:- The Revenue relied upon the findings of the lower authority and submitted that as the applicants are importing gas in the tanks and the gas is stored in the tanks in the factory of the applicants, therefore the applicants are liable to pay service tax on reverse charge mechanism. In respect of the rental charges received by the applicants in spite of the tanks in which the gas is being supplied to the customer, the contention is that the same is not liable for excise duty and the applicants are liable to pay service tax. The Revenue relied upon the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the applicants and their clients to submit that the responsibility of the applicants in respect of supply of gas upto the point of vaporizer in the factory of the applicants, therefore the applicants are liable to pay service tax.

Reasoning of judgment:-  It was found that as the applicants are importing helium gas in the tanks and the tanks are subsequently re-exported. There is no evidence to show that the supplier of gas has any responsibility in respect of the gas exported in tanks in the factory of the applicants.
In respect of the rental charges received by the applicants from their clients in respect of the tanks in which the gas is supplied, it was found that the applicants are paying excise duty on the rental charges; therefore we find that the applicants have made out a strong case in their favour. Therefore, the pre-deposit of the dues is waived and recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeals. Stay petition allowed.

Decision:-Stay application allowed.

Comment:- The essence of this case is that when excise duty is paid inclusive of rental charges, service tax cannot be demanded under storage and warehousing services under reverse charge mechanism. It is a settled position that excise duty and service tax cannot be levied simultaneously for a particular activity. 

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