TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 01.09.2016 passed by Principal Commissioner of Service Tax I, Kolkata. 2. The question arising for consideration in the present appeal is the levy of service tax on the lease rent charged by the appellant on the port users like, stevedores etc. for providing of storage space in the land parcel belonging to the Kolkata Port Trust for storage of import/export goods in terms of "Port Service" as defined under Section 65 (82) of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The period impugned pertains from April, 2004 to March, 2007. The appellants have been issued a show-cause notice dated 27.03.2009 demanding service tax and proposing imposition of penalty under Rule 15 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and charging interest under Section 75 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge on petroleum products, weighment charges for lorries, traffic appliance charges, weighment charges for goods; (iii) Railway haulage charges for rail-borne goods, local haulage and storage; (iv) Container handling charges consisting of import, export and transhipment wharfage on containers, equipment charges for handling of containers, container storage charges; (v) Labour charges. 2.2 All these charges form part of taxable value of port services. Demurrage charges are recovered by port authority as a rental for storage of goods. The fact that these charges apply only if the goods overstay a prescribed free period, does not detract from their being in the nature of a charge for providing a service in re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt that stevedores after obtaining the said license, generally utilized the allotted land parcel/space/shed for storing of import/export goods of their various clients. He further submits that the said agreement between the two parties is not in perpetuity but for a particular period at rates specified. He adds that as per the accounting convention, license fee was being categorized as "Estate Rental" which correctly reflected the nature /character of the income received by virtue of the said activity. During the period 2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 upon advice from their accounting unit, the nomenclature was reformatted and the said license fee was classified as "Lincese Fee for Storage of Goods", although the nature and character of the servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax on such license fee is being paid w.e.f. 01.06.2007 as "Renting of Immovable Property" i.e. when the said service came under the purview of tax net under Service Tax statute. It is an admitted position that both prior and post, the disputed period (2004-05 to 2006-07), the appellant had accounted for the said income under "Estate Rental". 7. It is also not disputed by the Revenue that the vacant land/shed which was being utilized by the stevedores for storage of goods for import and export and was acquired temporarily by the latter against a license agreement for a specified period. Mere change in nomenclature of a given act, does not bring about any change in the nature of activity so undertaken. Before us, the appellant had categor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... will not come within the ambit of "Port Service". It cannot be denied that such license fee received was for the purpose of renting of immovable property, which became taxable only w.e.f. 01.06.2007, as evident from the licence agreement. 10. It is also noticed that this Tribunal on a similar question arising in the case of Cochin Port Trust Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin : 2011 (21) STR 25 (Tri.-Bang.) with regard to a similar question, had held as under : "2.4 As regards the allegation raised in para 1.5 above, the Commissioner held that the rentals received for spaces/godowns etc. allowed for storage of goods was to be treated as remuneration received for services rendered in any manner in relation to goods. This....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Tribunal in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai I : 2013 (11) TMI 44 - CESTAT-Mumbai. 12. The ld.Counsel had also raised a plea regarding limitation, highlighting that the impugned show-cause notice for the period April, 2004 to March, 2007, was issued on 27.03.2007 by invoking extended period under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994. As there was no warrant to issue the notice in terms of the said provision, therefore, the entire demand raised was barred by limitation. 13. We find from the record that there is nothing to substantiate the Department's charge of suppression or wilful mis-statement. The appellant has been regularly filing returns in respect of t....