9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peration by IGTPL does not amount to rendering of port service - If at all any service tax is paid on this amount, the same would be available to IGTPL as Cenvat credit, which can be used for paying service tax on port services rendered by it-Hence, demand not sustainable. Regarding rent - The rent collected from individuals/agencies for allowing them to construct and operate jetties, we find it to be rent and not value for port services rendered - The persons/individuals operating the berth would be required to pay tax on port services if they render such services - Demand raised on CPT under this head is not sustainable. Regarding boat registration fee - As regards boat registration fee, the assessee admitted the liability and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to provide berthing and other facilities to vessels plying in the backwaters. CPT received certain amounts towards boat registration fee. The authorities tentatively decided that the above transactions by CPT involved the activity of port service. The amounts received were taxable under head Port Services of the Act. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 16-10-2006 was issued to CPT. Vide the impugned order, Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the show-cause notice and demanded service tax, education cess plus interest due on them and imposed penalties as mentioned in the first paragraph of this order. 3. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal, the demands raised have been challenged on the following grounds: (i) As regards t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The lessees used the plots either for office space or for constructing godowns for storage of goods. There was no justification for levying service tax on the said receipts. (iv) The impugned order invoked larger period which was not sustainable. The authorities had collected the requisite particulars from the audited balance-sheet of the assessee. There was no suppression of facts. CPT was a central PSU. The penalty imposed on the appellants was not warranted. 4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the royalty collected under the agreement by CPT from IGTPL for allowing IGTPL to develop and operate Rajiv Gandhi Container Terminal was not a consideration for any service rendered by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
