9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement do not indicate any clause authorizing the said parties to represent the Port Trust in the dealing with their clients. in the case of Tuticorin Port Trust (2008 - TMI - 31436 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - Service Tax), prima-facie, supports the case of the applicant. Stay allowed. pre-deposit waived - ST/839/2009 - 771/2011 - Dated:- 12-9-2011 - P G Chacko, M Veeraiyan, JJ. For Appellants: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.68,03,388/-, on charges received by the Port Trust, along with interest and imposed penalties under various sections. 3.1. Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that the permission granted to the said parties for operating the crane inside the port cannot be treated as granting franchise to them. The said parties are not given any representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d period of limitation is not justified and that out of the demand of about Rs.68.03 lakhs, an amount Rs.40 lakhs is beyond the normal period of limitation. 3.4. Ld. Advocate also relied on the stay order of the Tribunal in the case of Tuticorin Port Trust Vs. CCE [2008(12) STR 281 (Tri.-Chennai)] in support of his submission. 4. Ld. Jt.CDR reiterates the findings and reasonings of the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, agreements have been entered into between the Port Trust and the said parties and amounts have been collected as licence fee. Perusal of the agreement do not indicate any clause authorizing the said parties to represent the Port Trust in the dealing with their clients. Under these Circumstances, prima-facie, we agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate that it may not be the case of fran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
