9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as amended on 18.4.2006. Prior to this date, service tax was chargeable on the gross amount charged by the service provider for service provided. After the amendment on 18.4.2006, explanation (c) to section 67 was introduced which states that the gross amount charged will include payment of cheque, credit cards, deduction from accounts, credit or debit notes, or book adjustment. We do not agree with Revenue that the amendment to Section 67 has not made any material difference to the provisions of valuation. Before the amendment on 18.4.2006, the gross amount charged by the appellant would be none other than the amount for which invoice is raised. There is no other consideration flowing from the receiver to the appellant. The whole transacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed Section 76 and non-imposition of penalty under Section 77. As the issue is common, all appeals are taken up together. 2. The first appellant M/s. Nhava Sheva International Container Pvt Ltd. (NSICT) and second appellant M/s. JNPT are two container handling terminals both providing port services. The containers are brought to M/s JNPT and M/s NSICT on rail by the Container Corporation of India. Separate rail tracks are dedicated for both the terminals. However, sometimes the containers which are supposed to be off loaded at JNPT are wrongly brought to the premises of NSICT and vice versa. The wrongly offloaded containers are relocated by the respective terminals to the other. The cost of relocation is borne by either of the two as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... almost entirely of handling of export containers, service tax is not payable at all. He relied on the Karnataka High Court judgement in the case of Commissioner versus Konkan Marine Agencies - 2009 (13) STR 7 (KAR). Revenue has not shown any judgement of High Court to the contrary. Nevertheless we find that irrespective of the fact whether the activity is classified as port service or as a Cargo handling service, the stated policy of the government is to exempt exports from levy of any tax. But the fact whether almost the entire cargo pertains to export containers is not discussed in the order of the Commissioner although the learned AR did not dispute the statement made by the counsel before the bench. 4.1 The next argument of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of revenue neutrality because two different entities are involved, Commissioner relied on Jay Yuhshin Ltd. 2000 (119) ELT 718. We do not agree with him. Let us for a moment see the consequence if the appellant were asked to pay service tax on the value to be charged for all 1000 containers. What would be the net effect ? The net effect will be that as far as 700 containers are concerned, both the container terminals will charge the same amount to each other as per the contract. Supposing the charges are say ₹ 1 lakhs for 700 containers. If service tax is levied at the rate of 10% the tax will be ₹ 10,000. Both terminals would pay ₹ 10,000/-. And both would be entitled to take same amount of credit of service tax paid on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
