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 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