2008 (9) TMI 53 - AT - Service Tax

Appellants are manufacturers of sugar; as required by the Government, during the relevant period, they maintained a specified buffer stock out of free sale sugar to be disposed of subsequently based on specific instructions - prima-facie view is that in the given facts and circumstances of the case the appellants are not rendering the service of storage and warehouse demand under the category of storage and warehouse service is not justified stay granted

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the components related to storage, insurance, and interest for maintaining a buffer stock of sugar as required by the Government.
2. Whether the appellants are providing the service of storage and warehousing to the Central Government for the buffer stock held by them.
3. Whether the appellants are entitled to waiver of pre-deposit based on the ownership of the goods and statutory requirements.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, as manufacturers of sugar, maintained a specified buffer stock of free sale sugar as required by the Government. The Central Government granted buffer subsidy for storage, insurance, and interest components. The original authority held that the appellants provided storage and warehousing service to the Central Government, leading to the leviability of service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order regarding storage and insurance but allowed the appeal concerning interest. The issue revolved around the service tax liability on these components.

2. The learned Advocate argued that the appellants were not providing any service to the Central Government as they held the stock per statutory requirement, with ownership remaining with them until a decision was made on its use. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, opined that the appellants were not rendering storage and warehousing services to the Central Government. Citing a similar case precedent, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of dues and stayed the recovery pending appeal disposal.

3. Additionally, the Department filed appeals regarding the interest component of the subsidy. The learned Advocate requested clubbing these appeals with the ongoing case for joint consideration. The Tribunal acknowledged this request for consolidation and listing in due course, ensuring a comprehensive review of all related issues.

This judgment clarifies the service tax liability concerning buffer stock maintenance, emphasizing the ownership status and statutory obligations of the appellants. The decision provides insights into the interpretation of service provision in such scenarios and showcases the importance of legal precedents in determining tax obligations.