Inox Air Products Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
The appeals before the CESTAT Chennai concerned the liability to service tax on fixed facility charges (FFC) collected by the appellant for the periods April 2013 to March 2014 and April 2014 to March 2015. The Revenue had treated the provision of storage facilities at customers’ premises as a “Supply of Tangible Goods Service” under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994, and accordingly issued show cause notices. These demands were confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority, leading to the present appeals.
The appellant argued that the issue had already been decided in its favour in earlier proceedings. It relied on a prior Final Order dated 20.06.2023, where the Tribunal had considered an identical issue and set aside the service tax demand. That decision had also been followed by the same Bench in another appeal of the appellant. Based on this precedent, the appellant sought setting aside of the impugned orders.
The Tribunal examined the records and agreed that the issue had already been settled in the appellant’s own case. The earlier decision dealt with the nature of FFC collected for providing storage tanks used in storing liquid gases. The appellant, being engaged in manufacturing liquid gases, supplied such gases to customers and installed storage tanks at the customers’ premises as part of the supply arrangement. The tanks were owned by the appellant, but possession and effective control were with the customers during the contract period.
