2018 (4) TMI 1396 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - the Department has confirmed the demand of Service Tax against the respondent viz., CPT, whereas the service rendering entity is Cochin Fisheries Harbour (CFH), who is a separate legal entity and which has been administratively constituted under Ministry of Agriculture - Held that - if there is involvement at all of the CPT in rendering subject services, it is on behalf of the CFH, who is a separate legal entity - the demand of Service Tax has to be issued to CFH - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dropping of Service Tax demand on services provided by Cochin Port Trust at Fishing Harbour.

Analysis:
The case involved three appeals filed by the Revenue against the dropping of a Service Tax demand on services provided by Cochin Port Trust (CPT) at the Fishing Harbour. The Department had issued show cause notices to CPT for not including certain amounts collected for services rendered at the Fishing Harbour in the taxable value for the period of July 2001 to March 2006. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner (A) later dropped it, leading to the Revenue's appeals against this decision.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the Department had confirmed the demand against CPT, arguing that the services were rendered in the Port Area by CPT and hence CPT was liable for the Service Tax. However, the Tribunal found that the services were actually provided by Cochin Fisheries Harbour (CFH), a separate legal entity administratively constituted under the Ministry of Agriculture. The Tribunal observed that any involvement of CPT in rendering the services was on behalf of CFH. Therefore, the demand for Service Tax should have been issued to CFH, not CPT. The Tribunal referred to the Ministry's letter clarifying that certain rentals charged by the Port, including those for renting accommodation and land, were not liable for Service Tax under Port Services. Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order dropping the demand against CPT.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the demand of Service Tax against CPT was not justified as the services were actually rendered by CFH, a separate legal entity. The impugned order was sustained based on the observations made, and the Revenue's appeal was deemed to be without merit.