Tax Management India.Com

Home Page

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (2) TMI 485

CHA service - service tax in respect of turnkey jobs on 15% of the gross amount charged from the clients as per the Circular dated 6.6.1997 issued by CBEC - Held that: - the service tax on CHA services stands already paid by the appellant as per the Scheme, which was valid up to 2006. Hence, the Revenue is not justified in vivisecting the total lump sum received and charging service tax on activity of cargo handling under Port Services - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/206/2006-DB - Final Order No. 20117 / 2018 - Dated:- 7-2-2018 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : V. Padmanabhan The pre .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Shri G. Shivadass, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. N. Jagadish, learned DR representing Revenue. 3. The submissions made by the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant are summarized below. (i) Before the introduction of Service Tax Valuation Rules, CBEC prescribed payment of service tax in respect of CHA rendering services to clients on turnkey basis was payable as per Circular dated 6.6.1997. The said Circular prescribed payment of service tax at the applicable rate on 15% of the gross amount charged to the customer. It is the submission of the appellant that they were already paying service tax as per the above Circular but the Department has further demanded service tax in respect of various components .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

t in respect of CHA vide their Circular 1997. This was prescribed in respect of activities carried out by CHA on a turnkey basis in which several activities are carried out on behalf of the customers and a consolidated bill is raised. We find that the appellant has been following such Circular for payment of service tax on CHA service. We have also perused the dispute for the earlier period, which stands decided in favour of the appellant by this Tribunal s decision in the case of Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. (supra). In the above decision, the Tribunal observes as follows: 17. It can be seen from the above reproduced ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Velji P. & Sons (Agencies) P. Ltd. that the facts, of that case and the .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

rvices rendered by the appellants herein, but from 8-5-2010. It is an admitted fact that the relevant period in all these cases is prior to 8-5-2010. Hence, the contentions raised by the counsels for all the appellants that the Finance Act, 2010, has removed the lacuna in the earlier port services, is correct. 18. Hence, in view of the foregoing reasonings, on the merits of the case whether all the services rendered by the appellants would fall under the category of Port services or not, we hold that the services rendered by the appellants would not fall under the category of Port services . As the impugned orders are set aside on merits, there can be no case of penalty or interest in respect of this issue. 5.1 After perusal of the above de .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →