TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompensation paid by the ship breaker on account of failing to fulfill the contracted LDT. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the said charges related to provision of any service - Prior to 1.7.2003 the levy under the head of Port Service was limited to the services provided in Major Ports. None of the ports administered by the Gujarat Maritime Board are major ports. In these circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority whereby the demand was confirmed along with the imposition of penalty and demand of interest. Being aggrieved by the order of lower adjudicating authority, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), he also agreeing with the views of the adjudicating authority upheld the OIO and the appeal was rejected, therefore, the present appeal. 2. Shri. V.H.P. Singh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records, we find that in an identical issue in the appellant s own case this Tribunal Vide Order No. A/10027/2019 the following finding was given 4. We have gone through rival submissions. We find that the primary issue to be decided are as follows: I. If it can be said that the amount collected in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt Service in respect of the services allegedly provided on minor ports prior to 01.07.2003. 7. Thus, on both the counts, the demand cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 5. From the above decision of this Tribunal it can be seen that the issue has already been settled in favour of the appellant. Following the ratio of the above decision we set aside the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
