2019 (1) TMI 1540 - AT - Service Tax

Port services - amount collected in respect of short fall in the LDT contracted, whether provision of service or not - demand of service tax - period prior to 01.07.2003 - invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that - From the nature of amount collected by the appellant, it is clear that the said amount relates to the compensation paid by the ship breaker on account of failing to fulfill the contracted LDT. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the said charges related to provision of any service. Prior to 1.7.2003 the levy under the head of Port Service was limited to the services provided in Major Ports. None of the ports administered by the Gujarat Maritime Board are major ports. In these circumstances, there cannot be any levy under the head of Port Service in respect of the services allegedly provided on minor ports prior to 01.07.2003. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount collected in respect of short fall in the LDT contracted can be treated as a service provided.
2. If yes, whether service tax can be demanded under the head of port service from the appellant for the services provided prior to 01.07.2003.

Analysis:

Issue I:
The appellant, a Port Officer Ship Recycling Yard, Gujarat Maritime Board, collected charges for shortfalls in Less Displacement Tonnage (LDT) contracted by ship breakers. The appellant argued that these charges were in the nature of penalty and not for services provided. The Tribunal observed that the charges were compensation for failing to fulfill the contracted LDT, indicating they were not for any service provided. Therefore, the charges cannot be treated as a service provided, supporting the appellant's position.

Issue II:
The next issue revolved around the demand for service tax under the head of port service for services allegedly provided prior to 01.07.2003. The appellant contended that since prior to this date, the levy under Port Service was limited to major ports, and the ports administered by Gujarat Maritime Board were minor ports, no service tax could be demanded for services on minor ports. The Tribunal concurred, stating that before 01.07.2003, there could be no levy under the head of Port Service for services on minor ports. Therefore, the demand for service tax prior to this date was not sustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

This judgment clarifies that charges for shortfalls in contracted LDT were not for services provided and that no service tax could be demanded for services on minor ports prior to 01.07.2003. The decision provides important insights into the interpretation of service tax liabilities in the context of port services and the distinction between major and minor ports for tax purposes.