9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance ;ct, 1994 (the Act) on the appellants. The original authority held that the very fact that the assessee had not submitted ST.3 returns for the period from 16-7- 2001 to 15-8-2002 indicated that the assessee had suppressed relevant facts from the department. Thus he justified invoking of larger period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act in confirming the demand of service tax against the assessee. In the impugned order, the Commissioner found that the appellant had been registered with the department as a provider of or 'cargo handling services with effect from 16-8-2002. The appellants had wrongly described the service rendered by them as 'stevedoring' in their ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices on 18-8-2003. A clarification to the effect that the service rendered by the appellants fell under port services was issued by the Commissioner on 3-3-2004. Therefore the show cause notice issued on 7-7-2006 under Section 73(1) of the Act was barred by limitation as regards the tax liability during the material period. The show cause notice was issued after about 4 years of their registering with the department as an assessee providing 'cargo handling services'. It is argued that there was no finding of fraud, suppression of facts, collusion, willful misstatement or contravention of any provisions of the Act with intent to evade payment of service tax by the appellants to justif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case records and considered the rival submissions. The undisputed facts are that the appellants were engaged in stevedoring activity since 16-7-2001. They were engaged in discharging and loading container on the vessels at Visakhapatnam Port, shifting and re-positioning of empty containers, loading of containers in train from the port yard, transportation to vessel hook point, re-transportation, unloading and stacking at the port yard, shifting of containers from port site area to port entrance math gate by trailer, etc. They had sought registration from the department describing their activity as 'stevedoring'. The department however, registered them as provider of services under 'cargo handling services'. They had paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Persons such as the stevedores operating on the strength of licence issued by the port are not persons authorized under Section 42 of MPTA. In Konkan Marine Agencies (supra) case, the Tribunal held that stevedoring works carried out on the basis of licence issued by a port cannot be interpreted as rendering of any service on behalf of the port and the licence issued is only a permission to undertake such services within the port premises. The decision of the Tribunal in Konkan Marine Agencies case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore v. Konkan Marine Agencies [2009 (13) S.T.R. 7 (Kar.)]. In the light of the above discussion, we find that the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
