9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls), Mangalore. 2. The appellants undertake various activities in relation to the clearing of the goods and transporting the same to and from manufacturer port. In other words, they are engaged in the activity of stevedoring within the Mangalore Port. They are licensed by the New Mangalore Port Trust to undertake the above activity. The appellants are also issued with a registration certificate as clearing and forwarding agency within the premises of the port of New Mangalore. They undertake the above activities for various Custom House Agents (Cl-IA) like M/s. Aspinwall Co. Ltd., M/s. J.M. Bakshi Co. etc. on sub-contract basis. In some other cases, the appellants receive cargo directly from the customer and not through CHA. In such c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ually loading and unloading of cargo. The fact that the service undertaken is a taxable service is not in doubt. The appellants obtained registration from the department under the category of cargo handling service and C F service on 29-10-2003 and 18-7-2003. When the departmental auditor visited the appellant's unit they were of the view that the services undertaken by the appellants would fall under the category of port services. Consequently the appellant wrote to the department on 12-4-2004 to cancel the registration under cargo handling service and issue registration under the category of Port Services. In response to the above letter the department wanted various particulars. On 6-7-2004, the appellants received a letter from the depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditioner Company of India v. CCE - 2006 (3) S.T;R. 259 (Tri.-Del)-(Paragraph 2) = 2004 (175) E.L.T. 503 (Tri.) 5. Further it was argued that the entire issue is one of revenue neutral v as the CHAs would be entitled to take credit of the service tax paid by the appellants. In such case it is well settled that no intention to evade payment of duty can be attributed to the person liable to pay duty. The following case laws were relied on. (i) Amco Batteries v. CCE - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.) (ii) CCE, Mumbai v. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd . = 2004 (171) E.L.T.159 (S.C.) (iii) CCE Mumbai v. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. - 2005 (179) E.L.T.21 (S.C.) (iv) CCE v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd . - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 276 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who sub-contracted the work to the appellants actually discharged the service tax liability. 7. The learned Advocate responded to each of the contentions of the learned departmental representative. He said that during the period under dispute, the trade notices/Board's circulars issued earlier were not rescinded. More over the appellants in their letter dated 12-7-2004 well before the issue of show cause notice informed the department that their principals are paying service tax on the consideration received by them from their clients. He said that nothing prevented the department from verifying the averments of the appellants. 8. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the appellants in their letter dated 12-7-2004 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to our Principals viz. "Stevedoring" (Loading to ship and unloading from ship) and "Clearing Forwarding" (receiving the cargo at Yard and transportation of the same to along side vessel) are compensated to us by reimbursing the actual expenditure incurred plus our service charges fixed by them on the basis of quantity handled. Copies of work order enclosed for your verification. We have collected service tax on these service charges due from our clients and remitted to Central Govt. Account. The Annexure showing details of tax collected and remitted and balance payable is enclosed herewith for your verification. Therefore we cannot agree with the views of your department internal auditors that we have not arrived at the value of taxable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the sub-contractor to discharge service tax liability. This principle is applicable to all services and not only to particular services as stated by the learned departmental representative. The learned departmental representative requested the Bench that the issue may be remanded to the lower authority for giving a finding on the point of liability of sub-contractor. We do not feel it necessary to remand the matter, The appellants had informed the department one year before the show cause notice was issued that their principals are paying the service tax. It is for the department to verify the facts and take proper action. No other useful purposes will be served by remanding the case. It is clear from the records that Revenue was not ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
