CESTAT excludes wharfage and demurrage charges from gross value for Storage and Warehousing Services as reimbursable expenses

CESTAT Hyderabad set aside demand for including wharfage and demurrage charges in gross value for Storage and Warehousing Services, finding these were reimbursable expenses paid on behalf of cement companies. The tribunal remanded issues regarding Goods Transport Agency service liability determination, reassessment of collected but unpaid service tax under Section 73A, and penalty calculations under Sections 76-78. The court held that penalties cannot be imposed simultaneously and require reassessment based on sustainable demand. Appeal was allowed in part through remand for fresh determination of various disputed aspects.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues addressed in this judgment include:

• Whether the demand for Service Tax under various categories such as Storage and Warehousing Services (SWS), Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services, and Renting of Immovable Property Service (RIS) is sustainable.
• Whether the appellant correctly acted as a 'pure agent' concerning wharfage and demurrage charges under Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.
• The applicability of Section 73A of the Finance Act, 1994, regarding the collection and non-payment of Service Tax.
• The imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the applicability of amendments made by the Finance Act, 2012.
• The issue of limitation and whether the extended period of limitation is applicable.
• The correct rate of penalty under Section 76, whether Rs.100/day or Rs.200/day, during the relevant period.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Storage & Warehousing Services (SWS):

• The appellant argued that wharfage and demurrage charges were reimbursed by cement companies and should not be included in the gross value for Service Tax purposes. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt Ltd, which held Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, as ultra vires.
• The Tribunal found evidence supporting the appellant's claim that these charges were reimbursed and thus should not be included in the gross value for Service Tax calculation.
• The Tribunal concluded that the demand for including demurrage and wharfage charges in the gross value for SWS is unsustainable and set aside this portion of the demand.

Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Services:

• The appellant contended that they acted as a GTA, and thus the Service Tax liability should be borne by the cement companies under the reverse charge mechanism.
• The Tribunal noted that the department's calculation of gross value did not consider certain transportation charges, and the actual liability needed to be ascertained based on the factual matrix.
• The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Adjudicating Authority to determine the correct liability and whether the cement companies had already discharged the Service Tax liability.

Section 73A - Collection and Non-payment of Service Tax:

• The appellant argued that a significant portion of the collected Service Tax had already been paid to the government, and the demand should not survive.
• The Tribunal found evidence supporting partial payment and remanded the issue to ascertain the actual amount paid and the remaining liability.

Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78:

• The appellant contested the imposition of penalties, arguing that penalties under Sections 76 and 78 could not be imposed simultaneously and that the payment of Service Tax with interest before 2012 should exempt them from penalties.
• The Tribunal agreed that penalties under both sections could not be imposed simultaneously and directed the Adjudicating Authority to reassess penalties based on the sustainable demand.
• The Tribunal also noted that penalties should not be imposed if the entire amount was paid before the cut-off date in 2012.

Limitation:

• The Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked based on discrepancies between the P&L account and ST3 returns.
• However, the demand's sustainability on merit would ultimately determine the applicability of the limitation period.

Penalty Rate under Section 76:

• The Tribunal noted conflicting arguments regarding the correct penalty rate and remanded the issue to determine the applicable rate based on statutory provisions during the relevant period.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held that:

• The demand for including wharfage and demurrage charges in the gross value for SWS is unsustainable, and this portion of the demand is set aside.
• The issue of GTA service liability is remanded for determination of who is liable to pay the Service Tax and whether the cement companies have discharged the liability.
• The amount of Service Tax collected and paid under Section 73A needs to be redetermined, and penalties should be reassessed accordingly.
• Penalties under Sections 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously, and reassessment is required based on the sustainable demand.
• The issue of the correct penalty rate under Section 76 is remanded for determination based on the actual cut-off date and statutory provisions.

The Tribunal remanded the appeals for redetermination of demand and penalty in light of its observations and directions.

---