Appellants not liable for service tax on leasing outlets to dealers. Dealers had operational control. Appeal allowed.

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA - 2014 (35) S.T.R. 431 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues: Whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax under the taxable service of storage and warehousing for leasing out Petroleum Products Outlets to dealers.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants leasing out Petroleum Products Outlets to dealers for selling petroleum products, charging a monthly license fee for utilizing the facilities. The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice claiming the appellants were liable to pay service tax under storage and warehousing services.

2. The main contention was that the appellants were not providing storage and warehousing services but were leasing various equipment along with the land to dealers. The appellants argued that dealers purchased and stored the products themselves, and the appellants were merely providing services related to renting tangible goods, paying service tax under a different category since 2008.

3. The Advocate for the appellants argued that the dealers controlled the storage of petroleum products, not the appellants, and therefore, the appellants were not providing storage or warehousing services.

4. The Revenue contended that since the equipment was in the name of the appellants, and they were responsible for repairs, it indicated that the appellants were providing storage and warehousing services.

5. The Tribunal referred to Section 65(102) of the Finance Act, 1994, defining 'Storage and Warehousing,' which includes services for goods but excludes services for agricultural produce or by a cold storage.

6. Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that all operations at the outlets were under the dealers' control, not the appellants'. The appellants only owned and leased facilities to dealers, and the service provided could not be classified as storage and warehousing services by the appellants, leading to the appeal being allowed.

7. The judgment concluded that since the dealers controlled the operations and the appellants merely leased out facilities, the service provided did not fall under the category of storage and warehousing services provided by the appellants, resulting in the appeal being allowed.