9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort Services' and accordingly, have issued a show-cause notice 11.10.2006. Addl. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 30.1.2007 has confirmed the demand of Rs. 23,10,838/- under Section 65(82) of Finance Act, 1994 along with interest. He also levied penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Commissioner (A) vide Order dated 21.1.2009 upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence, this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that they are engaged in providing Stevedoring Services which include the work of unlashing / lashing of containers in vessels for discharge of import and export containers; for this purpose they have entered into contracts with vessel operators; they do not undertaken any other services t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services are held to be 'Port Services'. * Commissioner vs. Singh Transporters: 2018 (13) GSTL J40 (SC) * Principal Commissioner vs. Gandhar Oil Refinery (I) Ltd.: 2018 (360) ELT A177 (SC) 3. The learned AR for the Department submitted that the Larger Bench in the case of Western Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai: 2011 (22) STR 305 (Tri.-LB) has held that such services come under the purview of 'Port Services' . This Bench in the case of M/s. West End Minerals and Exports Pvt. Ltd. vide Final Order No. 20710/2019 has held that such services fall under 'Port Services'. He further submits that a specific authorization is not required and the license itself is as good as authorization. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service' as well as explanation given in the Board Circular give wider scope to the 'Port Service'. Cargo Handling Service is also subsumed in the 'Port Services'. 5.1 Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon ratio of many cases and states that the license issued by the Port does not qualify as authorization. We find that Larger Bench in the case of Western Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held in para 10.3 as under: "10.3 The term "port service" defined by the 1994 Act bringing any service provided by a "port" or "other port" "in relation to vessels or goods" to the service tax net does not make any difference if such service is also provided through any person authorised by the port or such port. If stevedoring service is accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y CBEC as cited above, show-cause notice seeking to classify the services under 'Port Services' has been issued. It is evident that there was a confusion in the interpretation of the taxable service so that it necessitated the CBEC to issue a clarification. Under these circumstances, it cannot be alleged that there was suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellant. Therefore, we find that as contended by the appellant and as held in the case laws cited, we find that a major portion of the demand in the show-cause notice is time barred. We find that the demand is to be restricted to the normal period. As per the discussion above, as mens rea is not established, penalties are liable to be set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
