2015 (10) TMI 1583 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - storage and warehousing service - Held that - issue is no more res integra as this bench in the case of Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & C, Raigad reported in 2012 (11) TMI 612 - Cestat, Mumbai has relied upon the Board s Circular, as well as, the view taken in the case of Mysore Sales International ltd., vs. Asst. CCE & ST, Bangalore reported in 2010 (12) TMI 453 - CESTAT, BANGALORE held in favour of appellant/assessee therein. - impugned order is not sustainable and the impugned order is liable to set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Taxability of amount received by a Container Freight Station (CFS) on goods auctioned due to abandonment by importers under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the taxability of an amount received by a Container Freight Station (CFS) on goods auctioned after being abandoned by importers. The issue is whether the appellant, a CFS, is liable to pay service tax on the amount retained from the auction proceeds. The Revenue contends that service tax liability arises under the category of storage and warehousing on this amount. The Tribunal notes that a similar issue was addressed in a previous case involving Maersk India Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that service tax is not payable by custodians when auctioning abandoned cargo. The Tribunal refers to the Board's Circular and previous decisions to support this position.

The Tribunal highlights that the Board's Circular clarifies that service tax is not leviable on custodians auctioning abandoned cargo if VAT/ST is paid on the cargo. Citing precedents like Mysore Sales International Ltd. and India Gateway Terminal (P) Ltd., the Tribunal reiterates that service tax is not applicable in such scenarios. After considering the arguments from both sides and the relevant circulars and decisions, the Tribunal waives the pre-deposit requirement and proceeds to dispose of the appeal.

Given the similarity of facts with the precedent case, the Tribunal concludes that the impugned order is unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal sets aside the impugned order and allows the appeal with any consequential relief. The judgment emphasizes the consistency in the application of the law in similar cases and the importance of adhering to established legal principles. Ultimately, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is accepted, providing relief to the appellant in line with the legal precedents and circulars referenced in the judgment.