<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (12) TMI 2 - CESTAT (MUMBAI)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217</link>
    <description>Service tax on storage facilities was treated prima facie as a separately chargeable storage and warehousing activity rather than an activity wholly covered by port services. Tank farm facilities stored liquid and gaseous cargo pending importer clearance, and the statutory expansion of storage and warehousing to include liquids and gases supported that classification. Separate charging and description of distinct service components weakened the claim that the facilities merely involved letting storage space. Location outside port premises also weakened the claim for exclusive coverage as minor port services, while the limitation objection lacked prima facie strength. Complete pre-deposit waiver was therefore declined; deposit of a substantial part of the demand was required and the balance was waived.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 2 - CESTAT (MUMBAI)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217</link>
      <description>Service tax on storage facilities was treated prima facie as a separately chargeable storage and warehousing activity rather than an activity wholly covered by port services. Tank farm facilities stored liquid and gaseous cargo pending importer clearance, and the statutory expansion of storage and warehousing to include liquids and gases supported that classification. Separate charging and description of distinct service components weakened the claim that the facilities merely involved letting storage space. Location outside port premises also weakened the claim for exclusive coverage as minor port services, while the limitation objection lacked prima facie strength. Complete pre-deposit waiver was therefore declined; deposit of a substantial part of the demand was required and the balance was waived.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>