Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (5) TMI 563 - AT - Service TaxEvasion of service tax - amount of rebate /concession granted by the Noticee in the wharfage charges to M/s. NCCL Jafrabad allowed as adjustment - to be included in the assessable value or not - Extended period of Limitation - penalty - HELD THAT - In the instant case it appears the appellant was collecting wharfage charges of Rs. 45 per metric ton for movement of concrete and cement produced by M/s. NCCL through the Jetty in question. Same was run by the appellant. The appellant had authorized M/s. NCCL to carry out the work of dredging maintenance and repairing of the Jetty for which their incurred expense of Rs. 1.96 crores. To compensate appellant had allowed a concession of Rs. 8.50 per metric ton on the normal mortgage of Rs. 45 per metric ton till set off against the compensation amount of Rs. 1.96 crores. As per the department the wharfage charges given as concession were meant to compensate for the services provided to the appellant by M/s. NCCL and therefore liable to discharge service tax. The period involved in this case 2005 to 2011 that is prior to negative list period and as per the appellant the show cause does not even specify the service under which the services allegedly provided by them would fall. There are substance in the submission of the appellant as they were registered for providing port services but in the instant case as per the department they had received certain services from M/s. NCCL for which they were compensated later through charging of concessional wharfage rate. What services if any were provided by M/S. NCCL to them and under what category of the services these would fall has not been alleged. Therefore the impugned order as quoted above maintains silence relating to nature of taxable services provided. The taxability in present without classification cannot be attached also. Appeal allowed.
|