2007 (5) TMI 27 - AT - Service Tax

Storage and Warehouse Service Alleged that appellant is providing the services of Storage and warehouse service and accordingly liable to pay service tax on it Held that the activity of appellant is not covered under said service and accordingly not liable to pay service tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is providing services of storage and warehousing.

Analysis:
The appeal was against an Order-in-Original confirming the demand of service tax, penalties, and interest recovery from the appellants. The case involved the construction and operation of a Jetty by the appellant as an importer, including the leasing of LPG storage tanks to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Coronation Ltd. (BPCL). The appellant argued that they were not functioning as storage and warehouse keepers, emphasizing that the agreement with BPCL was solely for leasing out tanks and machinery. The Revenue contended that the appellant provided warehousing/storage services to BPCL, supported by the services rendered as per the agreement. The main issue was whether the appellant was indeed providing storage and warehousing services.

The Tribunal analyzed the agreement between the appellant and BPCL, focusing on key clauses. It was observed that the appellant had agreed to lease out the entire LPG storage tank facility to BPCL, including machinery for unloading LPG from the ship to the tanks. The agreement clearly stated that subsequent operations and safe storage of LPG in the tanks would be BPCL's responsibility. The definition of storage and warehousing services was examined, highlighting that services include storing goods like liquids and gases. Referring to a circular, it was clarified that mere renting of space without providing additional services like security, loading/unloading, or stacking does not qualify as storage and warehousing services. Since the appellant did not undertake responsibilities beyond leasing the premises and machinery, the Tribunal concluded that the unloading and transferring of LPG gas to tanks did not fall under storage and warehousing services.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal due to the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's classification as a service provider of storage and warehousing.