Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 330 - AT - Service TaxDemand of Service Tax - it was revealed that the appellants have not included value of all services provided/received for discharging their service tax under various categories like Port Services, Cargo Handling Services and Goods Transport Agency services for the period 2004-05 to 2005-06 - Extended period of limitation - penalty. Port Services - Held that:- The Tribunal has analyzed the very same issue in their case ASPINWALL & CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MANGALORE [2010 (10) TMI 321 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that Since the service provider are issued with stevedore licence by the NMPT to operate within the port area it cannot therefore be said that they are not authorized by the NMPT for rendering services in relation to vessels and goods within the port area - demand set aside. Demand on Cargo Handling Services in respect of raw sugar - Held that:- The manufactured products are excluded from the definition of “agricultural produce”. The Notification is available only to such produce which fall within the definition given in the Notification. Since, in our opinion, raw sugar is a product which has undergone processing, we are of the opinion that the benefit of exemption is not extendable to raw sugar. Thus, the Cargo Handling Services in respect of handling of cargo of raw sugar would attract the levy of service tax - demand upheld. Penalties - Held that:- No positive act of suppression has been established by the Department with cogent evidence to conclude that there is suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Apart from merely stating that the appellants did not disclose the fact of rendering of Port Services, Cargo Handling Services and Goods Transport Agency Services, there is no deliberate act with an intention to evade payment of service tax established by the Department to conclude that there is suppression of facts - the penalty imposed under Section 78 with respect to both issues (Cargo Handling and GTA Services in respect of raw sugar) cannot sustain - penalty u/s 76 upheld. Appeal allowed in part.
|