9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , hydrographic surveys, etc. would clearly fall under the head “other port service”. Once this is accepted, when the port dues are collected, value of this service rendered within the port would form part of port dues. It is further evident from; the agreement that whatever the amount, the appellant received would be from the port dues only and no additional amount was paid by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In these circumstances, it becomes clear that the amount of 15% of actual expenditure paid to the appellant is port dues collected from port users. It is settled law that the same service cannot be taxed twice under the same head - Prima facie case in favour of assessee - Stay granted. - ST/25120/2013 - Misc. Order No. 25792/2013 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax once again. According to the impugned order, prior to 1-7-2010, this amount received by the appellant is to be treated as the realisation under the provisions of Business Auxiliary Service . After 1-7-2010, the date from which the service rendered in ports other than major ports also came into Service Tax net, the department has proposed to collect the Service Tax under the head other port service . Consequently, Service Tax to the extent of Rs. 84,40,687/- with interest has been confirmed. Penalty equal to the amount has also been imposed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant after explaining the details of the Agreement and the nature of work carried out by the appellant, submits that it cannot be said that the appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue and the details of the Agreement and mechanism followed by the parties in the Agreement. It is not in dispute by any of the parties that an additional amount of 15% passed on by the GOAP to the appellant has suffered any Service Tax. The claim of the department is that prior to 1-7-2010, this has to be treated as one of the Business Auxiliary Services on the ground that the appellant was functioning as an agent. At this stage, since the issue is quite complicated and the question whether the department can collect Service Tax on the same amount requires detailed consideration in the light of statutory provisions and precedent judicial pronouncement, we consider it appropriate that on limitation, the appellant has a case. 5. Coming t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
