9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt's activities including barging and directed the appellant to pay service taxes under the head 'Port Services'. Thus, the department itself was of the view that the activity of barging is not classifiable under the head 'Cargo Handling Service'. However, all of a sudden for the first time in its show cause notice dated October, 2008, the above service was sought to be classifiable under the head 'Cargo Handling Service' - amount of pre-deposit reduced to that extent. - Central Excise Appeal No. 2 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2014 - Mohit S. Shah, C.J. And M. S. Sanklecha,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Naresh Thacker with Ms. Divya Jeswant For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Ms. Suchitra Kamble ORDER P. C. At ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellant, the demand attributable to transport by barges is Rs.51.13 Crores and that to transport from one minor port to another is Rs.7.40 Crores. 4 The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 4 September 2013, prima facie, came to the conclusion that the activity of stevedoring, unloading, transportation from the mothership to the jetty in barges and, thereafter, to the customers' destination are all the activities which form a composite service classifiable under the head of 'Cargo Handling Service' as defined under Section 65(23) of the Act. However, so far as the issue of transport of goods from one minor port to another minor port was concerned, the impugned order dated 4 September 2013 prima facie concluded that the same cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red) to the Jetty of a minor port in barges cannot be compared with movements of the goods from the Jetty to the trucks or the customer's destination near the port. Transportation of goods in barges for such long distances cannot, therefore, be considered as a part of Cargo Handling Service. (c) Further, it is submitted that while directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.25 Crores, the impugned order appears to have ignored the facts that an amount of Rs.7.40 Crores demanded on account of transportation from port to port has prima facie been found to be not sustainable. (d) The demand to the extent of approximately Rs.28 Crores would be barred by limitation though the impugned order dated 4 September 2013 records the appellant's c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This entire movement of the goods calls for handling of cargo and it is this service which is being provided by the appellant to its customers. The action of the appellant in splitting up one service i.e. Cargo Handling Service into three services is only with an intent not to pay service tax. This is clear from the fact that prior to 2003, the appellant was issuing only one invoice, covering all the three services. However, thereafter, the appellant started splitting its services finally into three parts viz: 'Cargo Handling Service', Transportation Service (barging) and other port services. It was submitted that the services are composite service and would be taxable only under the heading 'Cargo Handling Service' as it is the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
