Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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