Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 815 - CESTAT HYDERABADLevy of service tax - pilotage charges - whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on Port Service as per Section 65(105)(zzl) in respect of the services rendered by them in Ravva Port with permission of the Port Authority? - Held that:- The amount received by them under the head “pilotage revenue” was in the nature of reimbursement of costs and not in the nature of consideration for any service. Even if it was treated as services rendered by them upto 18.04.2006, the value of taxable services for the purpose of charging service tax was a cost charged by them for providing taxable service. The amounts which they received as reimbursement were not chargeable to service tax. Whether the appellant has received authorisation from the Port authorities and if so whether it can be considered as a valid authorisation? - Held that:- A plain reading of the above letter shows that the appellant has been authorised to undertake various activities including pilotage and for this purpose, they need a licenced pilot. Therefore, the requirement under section 65(105)(zzl) that the services must have been rendered at Port or by a person authorised by the Port, is fulfilled. In this case is appellant, authorised by the Port has rendered the services. Thus, the appellant was fully liable to pay service tax on the pilotage charges which they received from their customers under the head “Port Services”, under section 65(105)(zzl) of Finance Act, 1994 - the demand of service tax on port services on the pilotage charges received by the appellant are upheld and any amounts which they must have already paid will be adjusted against the same, but the amounts need to be recomputed reckoning the amounts they received as cum tax amounts. Time limitation - Held that:- The appellant has definitely violated the conditions of the Act and Rules and has not paid the service tax. The benefit of not paying the service tax is evident. Therefore there is no force in the argument that they have not violated any provisions of Act with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Jurisdiction - Held that:- The services were rendered within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority and therefore the order was correctly issued by him. Wherever they have paid the service tax on these services, he has already taken them into account while computing the tax liability. Demand of interest u/s 75 - Held that:- Interest under section 75 on the recomputing amount of service tax also needs to be paid. Penalty - Held that:- The appellant has not paid service tax in violation of the Act and Rules with an intention to evade - penalty upheld. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|