2008 (1) TMI 358 - AT - Service Tax

Steamer/stevedores agent - appellants were admittedly holding licences as a stevedoring agent and were rendering the services as cargo handling agent and accordingly paying service tax. The services rendered by them are not services rendered on behalf of the port authorities - held that the activities of similar nature undertaken by the appellant cannot be treated as services rendered on behalf of the port and therefore cannot be considered as port services assessee s appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Applicability of service tax on cargo handling services provided in ports
- Interpretation of the definition of port services under Section 65(105)(zzl)
- Double taxation issue
- Registration under cargo handling services category
- Invocation of extended period of limitation
- Services rendered directly by appellants and not on behalf of port authorities

Analysis:

Applicability of service tax on cargo handling services provided in ports:
The appellants held annual licenses as steamer/stevedores agents issued by the Gujarat Maritime Board to provide cargo handling and other services at the port. Service tax on cargo handling services was imposed from specific dates as per the Finance Act, 1944. The issue revolved around the imposition of service tax on services provided in major ports and other ports during different periods.

Interpretation of the definition of port services under Section 65(105)(zzl):
The Commissioner confirmed demands against the appellants for not registering as providers of port services as defined under Section 65(105)(zzl). The demands were accompanied by penalties under various sections. The argument was made that the appellants were not authorized by the Gujarat Maritime Board to render port services within the meaning of the said provision.

Double taxation issue:
The appellants contended that simultaneous levy of service tax and customs duty on the same elements during the same taxing period amounted to double taxation. They argued that the classification of their services as port services was not legal and that they provided composite services, with cargo handling services being taxed before port services in minor ports.

Registration under cargo handling services category and invocation of extended period of limitation:
The appellants were registered under the cargo handling services category as directed by the excise authority. They argued that there was no misstatement or suppression warranting the invocation of the extended period of limitation for the demands raised against them.

Services rendered directly by appellants and not on behalf of port authorities:
The Tribunal analyzed the services rendered by the appellants and concluded that they were not services rendered on behalf of the port authorities. Citing precedents and interpretations of relevant laws, the Tribunal found that the appellants were directly providing services and not acting on behalf of the ports, thereby exempting them from liability under the category of port services.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, providing them with consequential relief based on the Tribunal's interpretation of the services provided and the applicability of service tax in the context of cargo handling and port services.

Judgment: The appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants, as pronounced in court on 8-1-2008 by the Members of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri M. Veeraiyan.