9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rthikeyan, Member (T) Shri J. Shankar Raman, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.P. Sridhara Raman, Special Counsel, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - One of these applications is for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of service tax amount of over Rs. 1.3 crores for the period July, 2003 to December, 2006 as also in respect of penalties imposed on the appellants. The remaining application is for similar relief in respect of service tax amount of Rs. 2.7 crores for the period July, 2003 to January, 2007 and associated penalties. In both the cases, the challenge is against demand of service tax raised on the assessee in the category of "Port Services" defined under Section 65(82) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve category. It is also submitted that M/s. CPCL and M/s. PPN were the persons authorised by TNMB to perform port services as defined under Section 65(82). It is also submitted that, from 1-5-2006, the date on which "support services for business or commerce" were introduced for levy of service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, the appellants have been paying service tax in this category in respect of the services in question. For the period May-December, 2006, they accordingly paid over Rs. 22.5 laths. This period is comprised in the period of dispute in this case (They paid similar tax for subsequent period also, which, however, is not relevant to this case). Learned counsel for the appellants has also claimed support from the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant. Learned Commissioner appears to have rejected the opinion given by the CEO, TNMB. Having done so, learned Commissioner cannot be heard to say that the appellants should be deemed to have been authorised to perform port services in terms of Section 65(82) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the absence of express permission, we have found a valid point in the submissions made by learned counsel. Accordingly, it is prima facie held that the appellants have a good case against the impugned demand. Moreover, they are also supported by a decision of this Tribunal. It has also been noted that the appellants have paid an amount of over Rs. 22.5 lakhs as Service tax in a different category (support services for business or commerce), for which they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
