Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2005 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (7) TMI 672 - CESTAT MUMBAIPre-deposit - repairing activity - failed to pay service tax - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The activity of repairing by the appellants, in our prima facie view is not covered by a service rendered by the Port or any person authorised by the Board to do so, inasmuch as the provisions of section 42(e) cannot be extended and stretched so as to cover the repairing activity. We also find favour in the ld. Advocate’s arguments that sub-section (4) of Section 42 provides for authorisation by the Board for the various services, at the rate specified by a notification in the official gazette. This reflects upon the fact that the various services, which can be authorised by the Board by any person are routine service for which various rates can be fixed. As far as repairing of the vessel, chipping and painting is concerned, the charges would definitely depend upon the extent of work required to be done. Such consideration, we have been told, depends upon the contract arrived at after negotiations. As such, prima facie, we are of the view that the services of repairing of the vessels are not Port Services and not liable to service tax during the relevant period. We, accordingly, allow the stay petition unconditionally and fix the main appeal itself on 5 August 2005.
|