2020 (2) TMI 452 - AT - Service Tax

Storage and warehousing services - demand of differential tax - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that near Renting Godown Space was not taxable during the period or that storage for warehousing agricultural produce was not taxable - Both sides agree that these facts need to be determined and for this purpose, the matter could be remanded to the Original Authority for examination of the documents. Matter remanded to the Original Authority for Denovo Adjudication for examining the Revenue contracts and invoices - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of differential Service Tax amounting to ? 59,63,602.
2. Contention over the disputed amount of ? 10,79,223.
3. Taxability of storage and warehousing of agricultural produce.
4. Taxability of renting of godown space.
5. Taxability of handling of agricultural produce.
6. Remand to Original Authority for Denovo Adjudication.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Service Provider offering storage and warehousing services, received a Show Cause Notice demanding differential Service Tax of ? 59,63,602. The Ld. Commissioner, through the impugned Order, reduced the demand to ? 14,67,041, dropping it to the extent of ? 44,96,561. The appellant contested the remaining disputed amount of ? 10,79,223, out of which ? 3,87,818 had already been paid. The disputed amount included charges for storage and warehousing of agricultural produce, renting of godown space, and handling of agricultural produce. The appellant argued that the demand for storage and warehousing of agricultural produce was not taxable under Section 65(87) of the Finance Act, 1994. Additionally, they contended that the demand for renting of godown space was not sustainable as renting became a taxable service only post 1/06/2007. Regarding the handling of agricultural produce, it was argued that the demand under 'Cargo Handling Service' should not apply to agricultural produce as per Notification No. 10/2002.

The Departmental Representative acknowledged that storage and warehousing of agricultural produce was not taxable but argued that the appellant failed to prove the nature of services rendered. For renting of godown space, it was argued that the essence of the agreement was warehousing services despite being titled as renting of immovable property. The representative pointed out clauses in the agreement showing the appellant's responsibilities for goods storage, indicating a warehousing service. Similarly, in the case of handling agricultural produce, the representative contended that the appellant could not prove that only agricultural produce was handled. Both parties agreed that a detailed examination of agreements and invoices was necessary to determine the facts accurately.

After considering both arguments, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Original Authority for Denovo Adjudication. The purpose was to examine the revenue contracts and invoices to establish the nature of services provided accurately. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following principles of natural justice and giving the appellant an opportunity to present their defense. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for remand to the Original Authority for further examination and adjudication.