9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018 in Appeal No. ST/206/2006. The applicant has further stated that vide Order-in-Original Sl. No. 7/2006 (ST) dated 29.03./24.04.2006, the demand of service tax was confirmed under the category of 'Cargo Handling Service' carried out by the assessee in connection with their activity of Custom House Agent and C&F Agent pertaining to the period 16.08.2002 to 2003-04. Further, it was also held that the services were not coming under the category of 'Port Service' and accordingly, as against the demand of Rs. 1,70,30,280/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Lakhs Thirty Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty only) in the show-cause notice, the demand of only Rs. 22,28,712/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twelve only) was con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the port authorities only and hence the services rendered were rightly classifiable under 'port service'. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the said Order of Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. and others had decided that the services rendered by the appellants would not fall under the category of 'Port Services' based on the discussions at Para 17 which reads: "17......The expansion of definition of „Port Services‟, which has been brought into play by the Finance Act, 2010, would seeks to include all services provided entirely within airport/port premises would fall under these services i.e. „Port Services‟ and there is no pre-condition of any authorization from the port authority for taxing the services. It is also seen from the Circulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessee submitted that there is no error in the Final Order passed by the Tribunal dated 07.02.2018 however he conceded that in para 5 of the Final Order it has been recorded that the dispute for the earlier period which stands decided in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal's decision in the case of Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. is in fact for the subsequent period and the only error the learned counsel conceded is that instead of earlier period it should be for subsequent period. But the learned counsel further submitted that this error will not make any difference as far as decision of the case on merit is concerned. He further submitted that the Revenue while moving this present application wants to review the whole case on merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
