2013 (7) TMI 506 - AT - Service Tax

Storage and warehouse charges - Assessee stopped paying service tax that there was litigation on issue storage and warehouse charges collected by them - Held that - Once service tax has been collected from the customers, the assessee is bound to deposit the same under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appellant is directed to deposit entire amount of service tax with interest after adjusting the amount already paid by them within eight weeks from today and report compliance to the original adjudicating authority who shall adjudicate the matter afresh after considering the submissions relating to exemption for storage of agricultural commodities - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on storage and warehouse charges for agricultural commodities.
2. Whether the appellant can be exempted from pre-deposit of service tax due to pending litigation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability for Service Tax on Agricultural Commodities
The appellants had been paying service tax on storage and warehouse charges until September 2006. However, they ceased payment due to ongoing litigation. The advocate argued that since the matter was pending in the Supreme Court and the service tax collected was held as a deposit, the pre-deposit should be waived. It was contended that service tax on storage of wheat and peas, as agricultural commodities, should not be applicable. The AR, on the other hand, asserted that once service tax is collected, it must be deposited as per Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal acknowledged that service tax had been collected even for wheat and peas, and ruled that the appellant was obligated to deposit the amount under Section 11D, rejecting the plea for waiver.

Issue 2: Exemption from Pre-Deposit
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not provided the exact figures of service charges collected for wheat and peas. Despite this, it was established that service tax had been collected from customers, necessitating its deposit as per the law. The Tribunal emphasized that the request for waiving the pre-deposit could not be entertained. Consequently, the appellant was directed to deposit the entire service tax amount, along with interest, within eight weeks. The original adjudicating authority was instructed to re-examine the case, considering submissions on the exemption for storage of agricultural commodities. The appellant was granted a fair opportunity to present their case, with a clear directive to comply with the deposit requirement within the stipulated timeframe, failing which the authority could proceed with the decision without further reference to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the liability of the appellant to pay service tax on storage and warehouse charges, including those for agricultural commodities, and dismissed the plea for waiving the pre-deposit. The appellant was directed to comply with the deposit requirement within eight weeks, ensuring a fair opportunity for presenting their case during the fresh adjudication process.