TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they did not discharge the Service Tax liability on the Railway Siding Charges received by them for the period from July, 2001 to March, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the Service Tax of Rs. 3,34,432/-. A penalty of Rs. 100/- per day for every day of default was also imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the lower authority. Therefore, the appellants have come before this Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri V. Raghuraman, the learned Advocate, appeared for the appellants and Smt. Sudha Koka, the learned SDR, for the Revenue. 4. We heard both sides. The appellants have their Port Railway Yard. The Railways coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence. There was no wilful suppression of any facts. The entire demand is based on the assumption that the railway siding charges, which are accounted by the appellant in the Books of Account, relates to taxable services rendered by the appellant under the heading Port Services without establishing the applicability of Port services to railway siding charges. It was urged that the appellant is receiving railway siding charges from the railway authorities towards utilization of 'Railway Marshalling Yard', which is owned by the appellants, who had allowed the Railways for construction of railway siding under an Agreement. Thus, there is no provision of any service at all by the appellant in the instant case and they are receiving certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant for any services rendered by them. Alternatively, we cannot hold that the Railway siding charges have been received for Port services rendered by the appellants. Para 19(c) of the Agreement relates to the collection of Railway siding charges by Railways. Moreover, the Commissioner himself has stated that these charges are different from Railway Haulage charges, which are included in the charges relating to Port Services. Further, we do not find any strong reasons for invocation of longer period and there is no proof for suppression of information by the appellants. The railway siding charges collected for use of the infrastructure put up by the appellant is not in relation to vessels or goods. The appellants also do not collect these c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
