2008 (10) TMI 87 - AT - Service Tax

Assessee constructed storage facility for liquid Ammonia in his factory assessee received charges from other parties also for providing above services demand under head storage & warehousing and cargo handling for period 16-8-2002 to 31-3-2003 department had registered them for assessing the same activities under port services from 13-5-2003 and therefore the same activity they had rendered earlier could not be subjected to tax under any other category demand not sustainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of services rendered by the appellant for storage and warehousing/cargo handling.
2. Barred by limitation - period for demanding service tax.
3. Proper categorization of service in the show-cause notice.
4. Applicability of service tax under different categories.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the classification of services provided by the appellant related to storage and warehousing/cargo handling. The appellant had constructed a storage facility for liquid Ammonia and allowed other companies to use it for storing imported liquid Ammonia. The department claimed the activities fell under 'cargo handling and warehousing & storage' category for imposing service tax. The appellant contested the classification, leading to a demand notice for service tax, penalties, and interest.

2. The appellant argued that the demand notice did not specify the category of service for which the tax was demanded and that the demand was time-barred. The original authority confirmed the demand for a specific period, but penalties and interest were imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order but categorized the service differently. The appellant contended that they had provided necessary information to the department within the time limit, and the demand was unjustified.

3. The appellant emphasized that the show-cause notice and subsequent order lacked clarity on the exact service category for tax liability. The department's failure to specify the service in question and the period for the demand raised issues of procedural fairness. The appellant argued that the notice was issued beyond the limitation period, while the department claimed the notice was valid due to the appellant's failure to file statutory returns.

4. The Tribunal considered the arguments and found that the show-cause notice's failure to specify the service category was a fundamental flaw. The Commissioner (Appeals) also did not clearly identify the service under which tax liability arose. The appellant's registration under 'port services' after a certain date raised doubts about the applicability of tax under multiple categories for the same activity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant due to the lack of clarity in categorizing the taxable service.