LPG storage terminalling charges not liable to central excise duty as services subject to service tax

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside central excise duty demand on terminalling charges collected by appellant for LPG storage and handling services to oil companies. The tribunal held that since appellant's activities constituted services liable to service tax, central excise duty was not leviable on terminalling charges. Additionally, the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed one-year limitation period without suppression of material facts, making extended period inapplicable. Consequently, penalty was also set aside as the duty demand was not sustained.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:

(i) Whether the "terminalling charges" collected by the appellant for storage and handling of LPG on behalf of oil companies are liable to central excise duty or are subject only to service tax;

(ii) Whether the appellant's activities constitute manufacturing or job work attracting central excise duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and related valuation rules;

(iii) Whether the demand for central excise duty raised by the Commissioner is barred by limitation, particularly considering the extended period invoked under Section 11A of the Act;

(iv) Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is sustainable in view of the findings on duty demand and limitation.

Issue 1: Liability of "Terminalling Charges" to Central Excise Duty or Service Tax

The relevant legal framework involves the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the Finance Act, 1994 (service tax provisions). The appellant operates a bonded warehouse for LPG storage and charges "terminalling charges" for unloading, storage, handling, and loading services provided to major oil PSUs. The valuation and classification of these charges determine whether central excise duty or service tax applies.

Precedents relied upon by the appellant include decisions where charges for services ancillary to manufacture or storage were held to be liable to service tax rather than excise duty, emphasizing the nature of activity rather than mere association with excisable goods.

The Court examined the nature of the appellant's activities and found that the appellant merely provided custodial and terminalling services without engaging in any manufacturing or alteration of the LPG product. The LPG received was already a finished product, injected with Ethyl Mercaptan for safety by the supplier (Reliance Petroleum Limited), and was stored and handled without any further processing or blending by the appellant.

The Court noted that the terminalling charges were separately invoiced and that service tax was duly collected and paid by the appellant under the direction of the Petroleum Planning & Analysis Cell (PPAC), Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (MOP&NG). The rates of terminalling charges were fixed and approved by government bodies (OCC/PPAC) under the Administered Price Mechanism (APM) for LPG, which continued even after the formal discontinuation of APM for LPG Domestic products.

The Court held that since the appellants' activities were liable to service tax and the terminalling charges were recognized as service charges, central excise duty could not be levied on the same. The Court observed, "Since the activity undertaken by the appellant is liable to 'service tax', we hold that central excise duty is not leviable on the said 'terminalling charges'."

Issue 2: Whether the Appellant's Activities Constitute Manufacturing or Job Work

The Show Cause Notice alleged that the appellant was undertaking manufacturing on a job work basis in the bonded warehouse, thereby attracting central excise duty under the valuation rules, specifically Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.

The Court analyzed the facts and found that the LPG received was a finished product, duly quality certified, and no further manufacturing or blending was carried out by the appellant. The appellant's role was limited to storage and handling as per instructions from the oil majors. The Court emphasized that the appellant had no role in product planning or logistics, which were controlled by the oil companies.

The Court concluded that the allegation of manufacturing or job work was unfounded and that the appellant's activities did not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the valuation provisions invoked in the Show Cause Notice were not applicable.

Issue 3: Limitation and Invocation of Extended Period for Demand

Section 11A of the Central Excise Act allows for an extended period of five years for demand of duty if suppression of material facts is established. The appellant contended that the Show Cause Notice was issued beyond the normal one-year period and that there was no suppression of material facts warranting invocation of the extended period.

The Court examined the documentary evidence, including AR3A documents covering movement of LPG from Jamnagar to Haldia and re-warehousing by the respective oil companies. It found that the appellant had not suppressed any information from the department and that all relevant documents were submitted in a timely manner.

Accordingly, the Court held that the extended period was not invokable as there was no suppression of material facts. The demand was thus barred by limitation, and the impugned order confirming the demand was liable to be set aside on this ground as well.

Issue 4: Penalty under Section 11AC

Since the Court set aside the duty demand on merits and limitation grounds, it followed that penalty under Section 11AC, which is contingent upon confirmed duty demand, could not be sustained.

The Court accordingly quashed the penalty imposed on the appellant.

Significant Holdings and Core Principles

"Since the activity undertaken by the appellant is liable to 'service tax', we hold that central excise duty is not leviable on the said 'terminalling charges'."

The Court established the principle that charges for services such as storage, handling, and terminalling of excisable goods, when separately invoiced and subject to service tax, cannot be subjected to central excise duty.

The Court clarified that mere custody or warehousing of excisable goods without any manufacturing or alteration does not attract central excise duty.

On limitation, the Court held that invocation of extended period under Section 11A requires proof of suppression of material facts, which was absent in this case.

Final determinations:

(i) The demand of central excise duty on terminalling charges was set aside as the activity is liable only to service tax;

(ii) The allegation of manufacturing/job work was rejected as the appellant did not undertake any manufacturing process;

(iii) The demand was barred by limitation as extended period was not invokable;

(iv) Penalty imposed under Section 11AC was quashed as the duty demand was not sustainable.

---