TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein was providing services of chipping, painting and repairing of ships and vessels under authorization of Mumbai Port Trust under Dry Dock Licence No. 336, dated 1-7-2004, which appeared to fall within the meaning and definition of 'Port Services' under Section 65(67) of the Service Tax Act. These activities were carried out in the premises of the appellants and in the case of inadequacy of facility in their premises, they carried out these activities in the premises of Mumbai Port Trust. The premises of the appellant are situated in the jurisdiction of Mumbai Port Trust and are leased out to the appellant by the Trustees of Board of Mumbai Port Trust. 3. After investigation, the authorities below came to the conclusion that the appellant had erred in not taking out the licence and registration of the Service Tax and did not discharge the Service Tax liability. Show cause notices were issued to the appellant to show cause as to why Service Tax amounting to Rs. 6,17,97,695/- should not be demanded and recovered under the various provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and to show cause as to why penalty be n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Finance Act, 1994 defines Port Services as "any service rendered by a port or a person authorized by the port in any manner, in relation to a vessel or goods." It is his submission that reference to the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 in Section 65(66) of the Finance Act, 1994 is only for the purpose of deriving the meaning/defining the word "port". It is also his submission that except for definition of "port", any reference to the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is clearly uncalled for. He submits that Mr. G.P. Singh in his book "Statutory Interpretation" illustrates as under :- "It is not a sound principle of construction to interpret expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act, any decisions rendered with reference to construction of one Act cannot be applied with reference to provisions of another Act, when the two Acts are not in pari materia." The meaning of the phrase pari materia was explained in the American case of Untied Society v. Eagle Bank - (1829) 7 Connecticut 457 as "Statutes are in pari materia which relate to the same person or thing." It is his further submission that the phrase "in relation to" has a wide-meaning. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act by itself and hence Major Port Trust Act has to be relied upon and the services as rendered by the appellant would not get covered as "Port Services". 7. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. It is the undisputed fact that the appellants were engaged in chipping, painting and repairing of ships and vessels in their own premises as well as in the premises as leased out by the Mumbai Port Trust. It is also undisputed that the period of the appeal in this case is from 16-7-2001 to 30-3-2004. It is also undisputed that the appellant by virtue of the authority given to them by Mumbai Port Trust has further delegated the work of chipping, painting and repairing of ships and vessels to their various sub-contractors. In this factual position, the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) needs to be read 'The activity of the appellant is to provide Ship repairing service and other marine repairs, paining, chipping etc. to ships and vessels. Section 65(67) of the Service Tax Act defines "port service" to means any service rendered by a port or any person authorized by such port, in any manner, in relation to a vessel or goods. A comb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. This is the case with the appellant and the levy of service tax must occur. Thus, adjudicating authority has properly hold that the repairing and other incidental services provided by the appellant are in the nature of "Port Services" in relation to a vessels/ships as defined under Section 65(67) of the Act in view by the Circular No. 67/16/2003-ST, dated 11-10-2003 issued by CBEC. The appellant was responsible for taking out necessary registration under the Act at the relevant time when their services became liable to Service Tax. In the instant case, the appellant are doing repair of vessels/ships and other activities for providing of "port services" within the meaning of Section 65(67) of the Service Tax Act read with Section 65(90)(zn) of the Service Tax Act. Further, Section 67 of the Service Tax Act provides that for the purposes of this chapter, the value of any taxable service shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. The appellant were well aware of the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. They were also aware of the clauses of the licence between them and the Mumbai Port Trust. These facts are further evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions made by both the sides and after going through the relevant provisions of law, as extracted above, we find that taxable services under the net of "Port Service" means any service rendered by a port or any person authorized by such port. As such, the services which can be taxed under the said category have to be either services rendered by port itself or any person authorized by such port Admittedly, repair of the vessel is not being done by the port. The lower authority has held the appellant to be a person authorized by such port to undertake the activity of repairing of vessel. 9. The appellant is admittedly a partnership firm carrying on a business of all types of marine repairs for which purpose they are given a repair contract involving supply of material, steel removal job, fabrication, refitting, and overhauling of machinery, from the principle contractor like Mazagaon Docks Ltd. etc. For such purposes, they have been given vendor registration. They also receive direct contract of repair from foreign ship owners or through their steamer agent. 10. Revenue has placed reliance upon Section 35 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963, which defines power of the Board to exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, the expression "or any other services in respect of vessels" has to take its colour from preceding entry. We find force in the above contention of learned Advocate. Where group of words followed by a general expression, the subsequent general expression has to derive its meaning from the previous expression. Admittedly, piloting, hauling, mooring, remooring, hooking, or measuring of vessels are activities which are directly connected with the entry or exit of the vessel from port area. As such, the subsequent expression appearing in the said clause has to be held as covering the services which are in relation to the movement of the vessel and has to be understood and construed by applying the principle of ejusdem generis. We may, at this stage, borrow the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sidhdheshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. UOI reported in 1989 2 SCC 458 = 2002-TIOL-206-SC-CX, reproduced hereunder: "12. The expression ejusdem generis - 'of the same kind or nature'-signifies a principle of construction whereby words in a statute which are otherwise wide but are associated in the text with more limited words are, by implication, given a restricted o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion "or any other process" has to be understood." 13. In the light of above declaration of law of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has to be held that expression "or any other services in respect of vessels" has to be extended to the services which are connected with the movement of the vessel. It is nobody's case that repairing of vessel in the dry docks is connected with the movement of vessel. As such, the Revenue's reliance on the above provisions do not advance the case. 14. We also find a force in the appellant's argument that sub-section of Section 42 provides for authorization by the Board for the various services at the rate specified by that port in the Official Gazette. This has reflected upon the fact that various services, which can be authorized by the Board to any other person are routine services for which various rates can be fixed in advance. As far as the repairing of vessel is concerned, the charges would definitely depend upon the extent of work required to be done. We are informed that such consideration depends upon the contract arrived at after much negotiations. This fact leads us to hold that such contract services of repair of vessel cannot be held to be "po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng on the assessee. Having held, after examination of the relevant provisions of law that such activity would not be included under the expression 'port services', we hold that above circular issued by Board, is not in accordance with the law.' 9. It can be noticed from the above reproduced portion of the Tribunal's decision that the very same definitions and the very same issue as to whether the services as rendered by one of the sub-contractor of the appellant would get covered under the "port services" or not was being agitated before the Bench. The above said judgment and order of the Tribunal very categorically held that it would not be. We find the very same judgment and order has considered the all issues as pointed out by the learned Jt. CDR. We also find that the Tribunal in the case of Velji P Sons (supra) was considering whether the ser vices of CHA would get covered under the category of "port services". Relying upon the decisions of the Homa Engineering Works (supra), coordinate Bench has held very clearly that CHA services would not get classified under the category of "port service". This decision of the Tribunal (in the case of Velji P Sons ) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
