COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUDHIANA Vs. GILL GODOWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to filing of this appeal by Revenue and cross objection by the respondent are, in brief, are under :

(2.) I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. I find that in the course of filing of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), it has been pleaded by them that they had not provided any storage and warehousing services and had given godown on rent to Nestle India Limited. In this regard, they had submitted a copy of the rent agreement before the Commissioner (Appeals). I find that the Department itself for the period w.e.f. 1 -10 -2007 is treating the services provided by the respondent as the services of renting of immovable property not as storage and warehousing services. Therefore, the services provided by the respondent during the period of dispute cannot be the services of storage and warehousing services, more so, when there is a rent agreement on record. In view of this, levy of service tax itself for the period of dispute is not correct. In my view, therefore, there is no justification in department's plea for imposition of penalty on the respondent under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. In view of this, I do not find any merit in the department's appeal and the same is dismissed. Cross objection filed by the respondent also stand disposed of as above.