TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y agency service. The present controversy arose during the departmental audit of the accounts of the assessee. During the period 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, the assessee have shown 'warehousing charges' in the balance sheets. Revenue took the view that these charges were received by the assessee for service rendered in the category of storage and warehousing service. It was also found that during audit there was a discrepancy in income as shown the in trial balance vis-a-viz ST-3. The Revenue took the view that the difference is on account of charges received for clearing and forwarding charges on which service tax has not been paid. The demand for service tax was raised vide Show Cause Notice dated 19.3.2008 demanding service tax to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pping the demand which may be upheld. 5. The Id Advocate on the assessee, on the other hand, argued that renting of immovable property service has been included in the statute book with effect from 1.6.2007. The assessee has already paid service tax on the amounts recovered by way of rent for their warehouses with effect from 16.8.2002, when storage and warehousing service was introduced, Since the service rendered by the assessee is only renting of warehouse. Consequently for the period prior to date of introduction of renting of immovable property service the service cannot be charged to service tax. He also argued that under C&F agent service, service tax is payable only on the commission received by the agent for providing the service.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....torage and warehousing. It has been specifically explained that mere renting of space cannot be said to be in the nature of storage and warehousing of goods. The essential test is whether the storage keeper provides for security of goods, loading unloading and stacking of goods in the storage area. The Ida Commissioner in the impugned order, after examining the nature of service provided by the assessee, has recorded clear and elaborate findings reads as under : "3.2.3 The Noticees have stated that they simply rented out their warehouses to the "lessee" and did not provide any service with respect to goods which were stored or warehoused on their premises. A scrutiny of the agreements with various "lessees" shows the premises were let out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said amount as value for service of 'storage and warehousing' when the said service was not provided by the Noticees. The allegation in the SCN is, therefore, improper and illegal." 8. We find ourselves in agreement with the findings of the Commissioner. Inasmuch as the assessee has provided the service simplicitor of renting of their warehouses, the activity will not be covered under storage and warehousing service. The finding of the Commissioner is to be upheld. 9. C&F Service- The scope of the C&F service has been clearly enumerated by the Tribunal in Larger Bench decision in the case of L&T vs. CCE- 2006 (3) STR 321. The relevant paragraph 9.2 is reproduced below for ready reference: "9.2 It will be significant in this cont....