2010 (1) TMI 396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - A common issue is involved in both the appeals. Accordingly, the same are being taken up together. 2. Heard both sides. The appellants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit approximately of Rs. 12.00 Crores (Rupees twelve crores only). The demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellants rendered the taxable service in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in it has been held that the railway siding charges are not covered under the port service as provided under the Finance Act. It is also submitted that in Chennai Port Trust, the Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order No. 16/06 dated 11-5-06 held that the service in question comes under the scope of business auxiliary services. No appeal is filed by Revenue against this order. The contention is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... port area. The Revenue relied upon the said agreement. 5. We find that the Tribunal in the case of New Mangalore Port Trust (supra) held that the railway siding charges are not covered under the scope of port service and the same are not related to vessels or goods and also the Commissioner of Central Excise in the case of Chennai Port Trust held that the service in question is Business Auxiliary .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X