9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents on which the Revenue entertained a view that these are liable to tax either under CHA service, Port service and BAS. The impugned order held in favour of the respondents except for upholding service tax demand of Rs. 6,46,837/- towards Foreign Exchange receipts. This amount is not contested by the respondents and they have already deposited service tax on this. 3. Elaborating the grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that the respondents are undertaking the activities inside the port and are collecting amounts from the shippers of the cargo under the category of wharfage charges. The same should have been added for taxability under CHA service. The respondents also engaged cranes and also undertake intercarting services of export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pping lines. They are getting certain incentives in the freight charges and this is not to be taxed as commission under BAS. There is no arrangement with the knowledge of the shipper and there is no service on behalf of shipping lines. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6.1 On the first issue, we note that the respondents are not engaged in port services. Further, the first issue they are not engaged in providing any service to the shipper by paying wharfage charges on actual basis. These are port charges and are getting reimbursed on actual basis from shipper lines. In any case, these charges are typically port services for which CHA is not authorized or involved. Regarding the intercarting of export cargo as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for appellant for the simple reason that definition of cargo handling service as reproduced hereinabove and Section 65(23) clearly puts a bar with regard to the imposition of tax meant for export which also includes handling of the export cargo. 18. In view of this, we find that there is no scope for interference in the order of CESTAT. Appeal being devoid of merits and a substance, is hereby dismissed in limine and the order passed by the CESTAT stands confirmed. In the present case, the services are similar to the one dealt in the above case. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 6.2 On the second issue crane hire charges are paid by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
