9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .07.2010 vide the Finance Act, 2010. Prior to this date, only such port services provided by a person authorized by the port in relation to a vessel or goods were liable to Service Tax under the category of port services. As the Respondent was not authorized by the port to render the services in the port area, the services rendered by them are not liable to Service Tax under the category of port services prior to 01.07.2010 - As the demand in this appeal pertains to the period from 2005-06 to 2007-08, it is held that the services rendered by the Respondent are not liable to Service Tax under the category of port services - there are no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ld. adjudicating authority in dropping the demand of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir services in the 'port area' in the capacity of a sub-contractor to the stevedores/main contractors and they were not paying Service Tax on such services even though they were registered under the category of port services . The Respondent also gave on rent / hire different types of cranes, trailers and loading and unloading equipment to the stevedores / shipping agencies and not paid service tax on such hiring activities. The Department contended that renting of such equipment is a taxable service liable to Service Tax under the category of business auxiliary service . 3. Accordingly, Service Tax was demanded from the Respondent under the category of port service and business auxiliary service , as mentioned in the table given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he activity of stevedoring under its fold. The renting of equipment for the purpose of loading and unloading of cargo are covered by the definition of supply of tangible goods service which was introduced as a taxable event only with effect from 16.05.2008. 4.2 Accordingly, the demands for both the above categories of service viz., port service and business auxiliary service, were dropped by the ld. adjudicating authority. 5. The appellant-Department has contended that the Respondent had provided services in the port area in the capacity of a sub-contractor. The stevedores have authorized the Respondent to perform such services in the port area and accordingly, they have stepped into the shoes of the port; the services rendered by them are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces. As the Respondent was not authorized by the port to render the services in the port area, the services rendered by them are not liable to Service Tax under the category of port services prior to 01.07.2010. As the demand in this appeal pertains to the period from 2005-06 to 2007-08, we hold that the services rendered by the Respondent are not liable to Service Tax under the category of port services. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ld. adjudicating authority in dropping the demand of service tax under the category of port services. 8. Regarding the demand of Service Tax under the category of business auxiliary service , we observe that the Respondent has given cranes and other equipments on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
