9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant, it is clear that the said amount relates to the compensation paid by the ship breaker on account of failing to fulfill the contracted LDT. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the said charges related to provision of any service. Prior to 1.7.2003 the levy under the head of Port Service was limited to the services provided in Major Ports. None of the ports administered b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board. They are engaged in providing services, namely, Port Services and hold valid service tax registration under Section 69 of Finance Act. The appellants were collecting charges like beaching, wharfage charges, ship breaking, landing and shipping, wireless telephone and anchorage charges etc. and paid service tax on the said amount. The appellant however did not pay the service tax on wharfage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were in minor ports, no service tax under the head of Port Service can be demanded from them. He argued that they were paying service tax under mistake of law in respect of all the charges collected by them. 2.1 He further argued that the charges collected in respect of short fall in the LDT are in the nature of penalty and cannot be treated as a service provided. 2.2 He further argued that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d prior to 01.07.2003. 5. From the nature of amount collected by the appellant it is clear that the said amount relates to the compensation paid by the ship breaker on account of failing to fulfill the contracted LDT. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the said charges related to provision of any service. 6. Prior to 1.7.2003 the levy under the head of Port Service was limited to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
