9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that Renting of immovable property services under which the impugned activity will be appropriately classified was introduced only on 1.6.2007 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/359/2009-DB, ST/307/2010-DB - Final Order No. 20186-20187/2019 - Dated:- 21-2-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri E.V. Sekhar, CA For the Appellant Shri Gopa Kumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The appellants have filed these two appeals against the impugned order dt. 20/01/2009 and 13/11/2009 passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner has confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalties under Sections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007 and the assessee vide their letters dt. 19/09/2007 and 25/09/2007 submitted the details under each head. The assessee executed a licence agreement with M/s. India Gateway Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (IGTPL), Cochin, as per which licence was granted to IGTPL to operate the Rajiv Gandhi Container Terminal from April, 2005 onwards. So from April, 2005 onwards, the container cargo handling at Wharf is being done by IGTPL. The licence agreement was for a period of 8 years and six months and based on the agreement, IGTPL took over the possession of the entire Container Terminal and the ownership of all the equipments at the terminal as as is where is condition was transferred to IGTPL. The Department entertained a view that al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record and the decisions of the Tribunal in the appellant s own case for earlier period, we find that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellant. Further we find that the Revenue s appeals against the decision of the Tribunal have also been dismissed by Hon ble High Court, as cited supra. In view of this, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and therefore, we set aside the impugned orders by allowing both the appeals of the appellant. (Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
