TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06-DB - Misc. Order No: 21023/2018 - Dated:- 8-8-2018 - Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member and Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Technical Member Mr. G. Shivadass, Advocate - For the Appellant Mr. K. Murali, Superintendent (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present miscellaneous application under Section 86 (6A) of the Finance Act 1994 for Rectification of Mistake in terms of Section 86(7) of the Finance Act 1994 has been filed by the Revenue seeking Rectification of Mistake in the Final Order No. 20117/2018 dated 07.02.2018 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch 2007 [Sl. No. 6 and 9 refers]. Here the appellants challenged the decision of the Department to classify the service under Port Service. The said stand was on the basis of the fact that the service providers were issued with stevedore and other licences by the NMPT to operate within the port area and therefore, it could not be said that they were not authorized by the NMPT for rendering services in relation to vessels or goods within the port area and it implied that the various services performed by the service provider were with the explicit approval of 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 othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sifying the same under Port Service. He further submitted that this contention of the appellant was factually wrong inasmuch as it was held in the Order-in-Original that the services were coming under the category of Port Services . He further submitted that the contention of the assessee that for the period prior to 2002, the demand made by the Revenue has been set aside by the Tribunal in case of Aspinwall and Co. cited supra is also factually incorrect inasmuch as the said decision pertains to the subsequent period. 4. On the other hand learned counsel 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 recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
