Tribunal remands case for reevaluation without pre-deposit; rental charges for storage tanks exempt from service tax.

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits without requiring the appellant to pre-deposit 50% of the service tax. The Tribunal held that the rental charges for storage tanks used for importing and exporting liquid helium gases were not subject to service tax under 'Storage and Warehousing Services' category as they were essential for the process. The matter was sent back for reconsideration without the need for pre-deposit, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision was preliminary and non-binding on the Commissioner (Appeals).

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against impugned order for non-compliance with Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. Dispute over liability to pay service tax on rental charges for storage tanks used to import and export liquid helium gases.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of liquid gases, imported liquid helium in special tanks for storage at minus (-) 269 0 C. The tanks were required to be exported within six months from importation. The Revenue contended that the appellant should pay service tax on the rent of these storage tanks under 'Storage and Warehousing Services' category. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to pay 50% of the service tax, which they failed to pre-deposit, leading to dismissal of their appeal for non-compliance with the stay order.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, waived the pre-deposit requirement and proceeded with the appeal. It was observed that the rental charges were paid by the appellant on the exported goods, and the storage tanks were essential for importing the helium gases. Consequently, the storage charges were not considered to fall under 'Storage and Warehousing Services' category, warranting no pre-deposit at that stage.

Since the impugned order did not consider the case's merits, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits without the need for pre-deposit. The Tribunal clarified that its view was preliminary and not binding on the Commissioner (Appeals) during the case's further consideration. The appeal and stay application were disposed of accordingly.

---