9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Service Tax liability for the period 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 in respect of Ports at Mandvi and Jamnagar. Since the issue involved in these two cases is of the very same assessee, we dispose the Stay Petitions by a common order. 3. Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant would take us through the various findings recorded by the adjudicating authority. He submits that the entire case which has been made out by the Revenue is on the ground that the appellant had executed an agreement for construction of jetty, Single Mooring Buoy (SBM) and other infrastructures in the Port of Mandvi and Jamngar with an exclusive agreement for usage. It is also submission that the appellant had been charging only 20% of the regular fee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecifically that infrastructure created at the water front shall always be a property of GMB hence there is a difference in facts of the cases and as was in the earlier order. It is his submission that the action of the appellant in charging 20% of the actual wharfage charged by them to other port users is nothing but an adjustment given for the cost of infrastructure created by the private parties. It is his submission that subsequently in the case of M/s Dahej Harbour and Infrastructure Ltds case vide Stay Order dt.26.03.2004, this Bench had an occasion to consider the issue independently and had directed M/s Dahej Harbour and Infrastructure Ltd to deposit an amount of Rs.25 lakhs. He produces a copy of said Stay Order dt.26.03.2004. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their own case in Appeal No.ST/403/2011 and ST/389/2009 which was decided in their favour by our final order dt.01.08.2013. We are of the considered view that for the purposes of waiver of the amounts involved, the ratio laid down by the Bench in their own case will apply. We also record that the reasoning adopted by this Bench for directing pre-deposit in the case of M/s Dahej Harbour and Infrastructure Ltd may not apply in the case in hand as in the appellants (GMB) own case we have held on an identical issue in their favour. 7. We are of the view, that for the foregoing reasons, the appellant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
