9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... day, during which they failed to pay service tax. 2. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the business of repairing, chipping, cleaning and painting of the vessels of Coast Guard, Naval Dock and ONGC at Mazagaon Docks Ltd. During the period 16-7-2001 to 30-9-2003, the appellants did such job under contract with their customers for a value of Rs. 12.93 crores approximately. They were issued a show cause notice dated 23-1-2004 alleging that the said services undertaken by the appellants are "Port Services" which are liable to service tax. The appellants took a categorical stand before the lower authorities that the services rendered by them for repairing of the vessels, under a contract with their customers cannot be tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d expression has to be interpreted by taking its complexion from the previous expression appearing in the said sub-clause. He submits that all the activities enumerated in the said clause relates to the entry or exit of the vessel from the port area and by applying the principles of ejusdem generis, the expression has to be construed as related to the activity of entry or exit of the vessels. For the above proposition, he relies upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision as reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 498 S.C. He further submits that as per sub-section (4) of section 42, where the Board authorises any person to perform the services mentioned in sub-section (1), such authorised person shall not charge or recover for such services any sum in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered by any person authorised by the port and thus liable to service tax. 6. In his rejoinder, ld. Advocate Shri Sridharan submits that the said section only provides the power of the Board to provide appliances, which include providing of dry docks by itself for further carrying out the repair activities, which cannot be equated with the activity itself. 7. After considering the submissions made by both sides and after examining the various provisions as referred to by both sides, we find force in the submissions of the ld. Advocate, as detailed above. The activity of repairing by the appellants, in our prima facie view is not covered by a service rendered by the Port or any person authorised by the Board to do so, inasmuch as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
