9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants. The remaining application is for similar relief in respect of service tax amount of Rs. 2.7 crores for the period July, 2003 to January, 2007 and associated penalties. In both the cases, the challenge is against demand of service tax raised on the assessee in the category of "Port Services" defined under Section 65(82) of the Finance Act, 1994. In one case, the appellants were engaged by M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (CPCL, for short) to undertake a variety of activities in relation to import and clearance of crude oil and natural gas, raw materials for M/s. CPCL, through a private jetty owned by M/s. CPCL coming within the limits of Nagapatinam Port and subject to the control of Tamil Nadu Maritime Board (TNMB, for short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question. For the period May-December, 2006, they accordingly paid over Rs. 22.5 laths. This period is comprised in the period of dispute in this case (They paid similar tax for subsequent period also, which, however, is not relevant to this case). Learned counsel for the appellants has also claimed support from the decision of this Tribunal in Velji P. & Sons (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 236 (Tri.) = [2007] 9 VST 372 (CESTAT Ahd.), wherein services rendered by a CHA were held to be not falling within the purview of 'port services' on the ground that the CHA was not authorised to do such services by the port authority. 3. We have heard learned Special Consultant for the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the appellants have a good case against the impugned demand. Moreover, they are also supported by a decision of this Tribunal. It has also been noted that the appellants have paid an amount of over Rs. 22.5 lakhs as Service tax in a different category (support services for business or commerce), for which they have got themselves registered with effect from 1-5-2006, the date on which the said category of service was incorporated in the Finance Act, 1994. The Revenue appears to have gladly accepted the above payment of tax. If that be so, we are at a loss to understand as to why the Revenue seeks to demand service tax from the assessee for the same period in a different category (port services). 5. Having found a prima facie case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
