Finality of prior classification bars contrary treatment for identical storage and warehousing service refund claims.

Refund of service tax paid on storage of iron ore fines inside the port was held admissible where the activity was treated as storage and warehousing service eligible for exemption under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. A prior order on the same service for an earlier period had attained finality, and the Department could not take a contrary view on identical facts for a subsequent period. The rejection of refund on a different classification was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of service tax paid on storage of iron ore fines at the port, treating the service as storage and warehousing service under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009.

Analysis: The disputed service was rendered for storing iron ore fines inside the port area before export. The earlier order for a prior period had already held that the same activity was properly classifiable as storage and warehousing service, which is a specified exempted service under Sl. No. 9 of Notification No. 17/2009-ST. That order had attained finality as the Department had not challenged it. In these circumstances, the Department could not adopt a contrary stand for a subsequent period on the same issue.

Conclusion: The refund claim was admissible, and the rejection was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with consequential relief as permissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the same service for a prior period has been finally accepted as an eligible exempted service, the Department cannot take a contrary view for a subsequent period on identical facts, and refund cannot be denied by misclassifying the service.

---