Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 185 - AT - Service TaxLevy of Service Tax - Sundry Handling - the appellant has argued that amount of ₹ 33,33,333/- is not taxable as the same is appropriation of reimbursement of ₹ 10,00,00,000/- received as upfront fee for the period of 30 years for the lease granted to ABG Kandla Container Terminal Limited - principles of natural justice - Held that:- The reasons given by the appellant was not properly dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority and therefore, the same was not considered and the observations of the Adjudicating Authority against this head are vague and without any authority of law - demand cannot be set aside. Toll Collection and Entry Fee collected from any person/ vehicles carrying goods within the port area - Circular F. No. 354/27/2012-TRU dated 22.02.2012 - Held that:- The entry charges and toll charges can be in the ambit of term Port Service only with effect from 01.07.2010 - In this case, the Entry fees and Toll fees are in relation to the goods and persons attending to vessel and/ or goods only. Thus, this service can be covered under the definition of Port Service. Therefore, the demand in respect of Toll charges and Entry Fees charges is upheld. Demand of service tax - Royalty for containers and Income from 11th and 12th cargo berth - Held that:- Identical matter was decided in the case of Cochin Port Trust vs. CCE, Cochin [2010 (5) TMI 495 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that Letting out the port premises for operation by IGTPL does not amount to rendering of port service. In any case, if at all any service tax is paid on this amount, the same would be available to IGTPL as Cenvat credit, which can be used for paying service tax on port services rendered by it - the demand under the head of Royalty for containers and Income from 11th and 12th cargo berth cannot be sustained and is set-aside. Demand of service tax under the head of renting of immovable property services - Township income - Held that:- There is no discussion on the nature of service against which this amount is received, who is the person who paid the amount and what is the arrangement between the appellant and the person paying for such amounts. In these circumstances, we find that the impugned order is not a speaking order on this issue and therefore, the same needs to be set-aside and issue needs to be remanded for determining the exact grounds and arguments on the basis of which the demand under the head of township income was confirmed - matter on remand. CENVAT Credit - input services - Telephone used by various officers installed at their residential premises - Held that:- The Port operates 24x7 at 365 days and there can be any emergency and all the officers needs to be accessible all time. In this circumstance, telephones at the residential premises are essential ingredient for provision of service and thus, credit on the Telephone installed at the residential premises cannot be denied - credit allowed. CENVAT Credit - input services - taxi and bus services used for movement of the employees to various places - Held that:- The taxi and bus services are used for movement of the employees to various places and the credit cannot be denied. Extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that:- Most issues in dispute are either contentious or decided in favor of the appellant. In these facts and circumstances, there is no merit in invocation of extended period or in position of penalty under Section 78. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
|