9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise, 2011 (22) S.T.R. 305 (Tri.-LB). The appellant has been discharging service tax on stevedoring operations, initially under Cargo Handling Services and subsequently under the Port Services. Separate invoices are raised for the stevedoring operations. 2. Indian Potash Ltd (IPL) is an agency designated by the Government of India for import and distribution of the fertilizers in India. The appellant as a licensed stevedore provides port services for unloading the bulk cargo. Service tax is paid on the same under port services. 3. The appellant has been entrusted with the task of transporting the bulk fertilizers from the wharf to the ware houses of IPL outside the port under a separate contract. The appellant issues Goods Consignmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the dealers. This activity is also classified under cargo handling services. The services relating (i) and (ii) are in relation to bulk fertilizer and the services at in relation to (iii) and (iv) are in relation bagged fertilizer. Separate invoices are raised and service tax as applicable paid. 6. In the impugned order it has been held that different services provided by the appellants as discussed above are to be treated as if it is a single composite service and categorized as 'Cargo Handling Service' and tax should be discharged. On this basis, the differential service tax of Rs. 1,80,60,703/- has been demanded with interest and penalties have been imposed. 7. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellants submitted that it is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35. The assessees have cited the clarification provided by CBEC Circular No. F. No. B/11/1/2002-TRU dated 01.08.2002 and claimed that the amounts received towards transportation cannot be construed as having been received towards 'Cargo Handling Service'. The relevant portion of the CBEC Circular F. No. B/11/1/2002-TRU dated 01.08.2002 reads as follows: 4. A point has been raised as to what would be the value of service tax in a case where transport and cargo handling service is provided in a composite manner. The measure of tax is the gross amount charged by the cargo handling agency from the customer. Therefore, if lump sum amount is charged for both tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y charged and separately billed for. That being the position, it cannot be treated as a composite activity at all. Moreover, service tax is payable on GTA service and there is no evidence that service tax has not been paid on GTA service by IPL. In our opinion, transportation activity in this case is a distinct activity since it comes in the middle of handling of cargo within the port and bagging outside the port and unless the appellants charged a lump sum amount for all the three activities and there is no divisibility according to the understanding of both the parties, it cannot be treated as a composite contract. Therefore in our opinion appellants have made out a case on merits and accordingly the requirement of pre-deposit is waived a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
