9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered as port services – assessee’s appeal allowed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in case of Appeal No. ST/94/06 and imposed equal penalty under Section 78; he also imposed penalty under Section 76 & 77. The demand related to the period from 1-7-2003 to 31-1-2005. 3.2.3 The Commissioner demanded a sum of Rs.56,91,623/- along with interest from M/s Shree Sagar Stevedores, the appellant in the Appeal No.ST/132/07; the demand is relating to the period 1.2.05 to 31.3.05; he also imposed penalty under Section 76 & 77. 4.1 The learned advocate submits that the appellants are only having annual licence as steamer/stevedores agent issued by GMB; they are not authorized in any manner by GMB to render any port services within the meaning of expression in Section 65 (105) (zzl). 4.2 Simultaneous levy of service tax and custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admittedly holding licences as a stevedoring agent and were rendering the services as cargo handling agent and accordingly paying service tax. The services rendered by them are not services rendered on behalf of the port authorities. 5.2 In this connection, the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal in case of Konkan Marine Agency, is reproduced below. "6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The point at issue is whether the services rendered by the appellants amount to 'Port Services' and whether they are liable to pay Service Tax in terms of the Finance Act, 1994. We find that the appellants obtained the stevedoring licence from the Mangalore Port Trust for carrying out the stevedoring operations. The stevedo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n held that the Board's circular issued on this behalf is not in accordance with law. Moreover, the appellants have produced a letter from the Mangalore Port Trust which clearly say that the appellants are rendering the services directly and not on behalf of the port. In these circumstances, there is much force in the appellant's contention that services rendered by them would not amount to 'Port Services'. In other words, it would only be 'Cargo Handling Services'. But, the appellants would not come within the ambit of taxation, because in respect of 'Cargo Handling Services', the cargo in relation to exports are excluded from the purview. Since the appellant is only handling the export cargo, he would not be liable to Service Tax even und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
