Seabird Marine Services Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Facts- These appeals are filed by the M/s Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Allcargo Logistic Ltd., and Honeycomb Logistics Pvt. Ltd. against demand of Service Tax on “Storage and Warehousing services” allegedly provided by the appellant’s, demand of interest and imposition of penalties.
It is alleged that the Appellant artificially split charges into two categories viz. “Storage and Warehousing Services” and “Cargo Handling Service” for handling of export cargo by claiming the benefit of specific exclusion in the definition of “Cargo Handling Service”. The impugned order held that the Appellant paid service tax under category of “Storage and Warehousing Services” in the case of storage of import cargo and did not pay service tax by classifying it under category of “Cargo Handling Service” even though the nature of services rendered in respect of import and export was identical.
Conclusion- The Circular No.104/7/2008-ST dated 06.08.2008 issued by CBEC clarified that transportation is not an essential character of “Cargo Handling Services” but only incidental to “Cargo Handling Services”.
In view of above the arguments in the impugned orders that only the “Cargo Handling Services” provided in respect of transportation of goods would be classifiable as “Cargo Handling Services” is misplaced and liable to be rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
These appeals are filed by the M/s Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Allcargo Logistic Ltd., and Honeycomb Logistics Pvt. Ltd. against demand of Service Tax on “Storage and Warehousing services” allegedly provided by the appellant’s, demand of interest and imposition of penalties. The details of the cases are as follows:
