9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORPN. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF ST, BANGALORE [ 2007 (8) TMI 55 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] has held that there is also no justification for imposing such a savage penalty on a State Government Corporation. In the present case, the appellants have discharged their statutory functions as the mandate given by the Karnataka State Excise Act and Rules thereunder and have not rendered any services such as Business Auxiliary Service and Storage and Warehousing Service . Therefore, the payments received by them in the form of commission or warehousing charges are not exigible to service tax - the impugned orders as far as they relate to the party s appeals are not sustainable and needs to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and Storage and Warehousing Services . Periodical show-cause notices have been issued and have been confirmed as follows: Appeal No. OIO/OIA Period Amount ST/00805/2009 No.26-28/2009 dt. 29.6.2009 July 2003 to Sept.2008 Rs.55,82,44,982/- ST/01703/2011 No.53/2011 dt. 24.3.2011 Oct. 2008 to Sept. 2009 Rs.28,47,01,583/- ST/00331/2012 No.188/2011 dt. 24.11.2011 Oct. 2009 to Sept. 2010 Rs.43,22,08, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Beverages Corporation Ltd (supra) has been upheld by Supreme Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition as reported in 2018-TIOL-270-SC-CX. 2.1 Learned counsels for the appellant further submits that the Revenue appeal is on the ground that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the judgment of Rajasthan High Court (supra) whereas the departmental Review Petition No.110/2015 is pending before Rajasthan High Court. He submits that Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 15.2.2022 has dismissed the Review Petition. 3. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of impugned orders in respect of party appeals and grounds of appeal in the Revenue appeal. 4. Heard both sides and perused the reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e services of storage and warehousing and it cannot be said that they are providing the services of Storage and Warehousing so that they would be liable to payment of Service Tax under that category in terms of Finance Act, 1994. The fact that they record the charges collected as storage charges would alone be not a proper reason for treating them as storage charges in view of the decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court holding that the substance of a transaction would prevail over the form. In view of our above observations, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. There is also no justification for imposing such a savage penalty on a State Government Corporation, in these circumstances, we allow the appeal with consequential relief, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Karnataka State Excise Act and Rules thereunder and have not rendered any services such as Business Auxiliary Service and Storage and Warehousing Service . Therefore, the payments received by them in the form of commission or warehousing charges are not exigible to service tax. Therefore, we find that the impugned orders as far as they relate to the party s appeals are not sustainable and needs to be set aside. For the same reason, the department s appeal is not maintainable. 5. In the result, appeals No. ST/805/2009; ST/1703/2011; ST/331/2012; ST/25436/2013 and ST/20326/2020 filed by M/s. Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Ltd. are allowed and Revenue s appeal No. ST/20120/2021 is dismissed as not maintainable. (Order pron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
