9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment of Gujarat. During the period 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 the appellants recovered certain amounts from the various ship breakers to whom they had allotted plots at Alang for the purpose of ship breaking. The various charges connected by them were under the following heads: Land lease Rental Plot Developmental Charges Plot Rent Plot Rent Shipping Breaking Shore Assistant Charges Water & Electricity Charges (Plot rent) Demands were raised against them to recover service tax on all this charges however, the demand was confirmed only in respect of recoveries made against plot development charges only. 2.1 Learned counsel pointed out that earlier a show cause notice was issued to them in respect of same set of plots al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lected by them under all heads mentioned in para 2 above. 2.2 The issue regarding disclosure of details regarding collection of plot development fee vide letter dated 29.12.2009 was informed to the Commissioner still the demand of service tax under the head of Port Service for the amount collected under user development fee has been confirmed by the Commissioner. He pointed out that they had informed about the said fee to the officers of DGCEI in 2009 but the officers in 2013 have chosen to issue show cause notice invoking extended period of limitation in 2013. He argued that entire demand is barred by limitation as full disclosure was made by them to the Revenue vide their letter dated 29.12.2009, before issue of first set of notices for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Apex Court reported at 2015 (39) STR 529. 2.4 Learned counsel also relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited 2023 (6) TMI 1001-CESTAT-MUMBAI. 2.5 Learned authorized representative relies on the impugned order. He pointed out that the show cause notice has been raised on the basis of CERA objection. Learned authorized representative pointed out that the appellant assist the ship breakers in bringing the vessels for breaking into the shipyard. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that two proceedings have been initiated against the appellant covering the same period and in respect of same set of receipts. The appellants have received amounts under the following heads from the shi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LOT DEVELOPMENT FEES PLOT DEVELOPMENT FEES - The same is collected from port developers and no services whatsoever in connection with vessel and / or cargo is provided by GMB. Hence, in view of the said factual situation no service tax is collect on same." From the above, it is apparent that the appellant had a view that the collection made under the head of 'user development fee' is not in respect of any service and the said amount collected by them is not liable to payment of service tax. Their views were clearly communicated to the office of DGCEI and no show cause notice under the said head was issued by the office of DGCEI to the appellant. In this background, issuance of show cause notice on 10.04.2013 demanding service tax on thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
