9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 (1) TMI 317 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ] wherein the issue to be decided before the tribunal is that when GMB charged wharfage charges at the rate of 20% of the notified rate to M/s Essar Bulk Terminal Limited (M/s EBTL) and the same was charged on actual by M/s EBTL to M/s ESTL, the EBTL on the transaction between EBTL and ESTL required to charge the service tax on 100% of the notified rate including 80% rebate given by GMB to EBTL or on the 20% of the notified rate on which the service tax was discharged is correct or otherwise. However the said matter was decided by the tribunal on 06.01.2022 whereas impugned orders were passed on 14.12.2012, 15.10.2012 and 31.12.2015. Since the issue involved is mixed question of fact and law and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve jetty for purpose of handling, storage and transportation of cargos. The said captive jetty was constructed by M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. (Unit : Birla Copper), Dahej (M/s HILBC) after the approval from the GMB and later handed over to DHIL for its handling and maintenance. A Licence agreement was made between the GMB and DHIL on 11th August 1999 wherein GMB, DHIL HILBC are referred to as Board‟, Licensee‟ and Company‟ respectively. GMB had agreed to give concession to the extent of 80% on the actual landing and shipping fees (known as Wharfage Charges) specified in the schedule of port charges, in form of Jetty rebate on captive cargo (i.e. cargo owned by HILBC) in lieu of cost of construction of jetty by M/s HI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax 1. V/S.Tax/OA/DHIL-Port/Adj/Commr-15/2011-12 dated 14.10.2011 09/VDR-II/DHIL-Port/D-BRH/ADJ/COMMR/2012-13 dated 14.12.2012 2006-07 to 2010-2011 5,17,53,962/- 2. V/S.Tax/DHIL-Port/Adj/Commr/45/12-13 dated 27.09.2012 VAD-EXCUS-002-COM-008-13-14 dated 15.10.2013 2011-2012 92,57,824/- 3. V/S.Tax/DHIL/D.BRH/Adj/ Commr/62/14-15 dated 08.10.2014 BHR-EXCUS-000-COM-016-15-16 dated 31.12.2015 July 2012 to January 2013 63,54,118/ 3. Being aggrieved by the above impugned orders appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Finance Act, 1994, the Service tax is to be on Gross Amount Charged , the appellant have correctly discharged their service tax liability. If something is not charged by the service provider, it should not form part of value of taxable service. Rule 3(a) of Service tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 is applicable when the value of service is not ascertainable in terms of Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994. In terms of Section 67, the gross amount charged by the appellant is the sole consideration for the services and therefore rule 3 cannot be applicable. 7. Shri Tara Prakash, learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned orders. 8. We have heard both the sides and pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
