2011 (7) TMI 950 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Waives Pre-deposit, Stays Service Tax Recovery

The tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of disputed Service Tax, interest, and penalty amounts pending the appeal process. It ... Demand - port services - Revenue neutral - learned Advocate submitted that the adjudicating authority has dropped the show-cause notice on the ground that inter-terminal handling activity provided by one service provider to the other service provider is inevitable without which the service provider cannot provide port handling services to their clients/customer - Held that: prima facie the services rendered by the applicants are not the port service during the impugned period and applicants are having strong case on the ground of revenue neutrality also - Decided in favor of the assessee Issues:Interpretation of port services for Service Tax liability during a specific period.Validity of demand raised against the appellant for transportation of containers.Contradictory views of the adjudicating authority and revisionary authority.Prima facie case for waiver of Service Tax, interest, and penalty.Interpretation of Port Services:The appellant, a provider of port services, was issued a show-cause notice for Service Tax demand related to the transportation of containers during a specific period. The appellant contended that the activity of inter-terminal container handling, which was the subject of the demand, did not fall under the category of any service as it was essential for providing port handling services to clients. The adjudicating authority had dropped the demand based on this argument, but the revisionary authority reversed this decision, leading to contradictory views. The appellant argued that the services provided did not qualify as port services during the period in question, and the demands were not sustainable due to a revenue-neutral situation, lack of invoicing, and other grounds.Validity of Demand for Transportation of Containers:The appellant's services involved the transportation of containers that were wrongly transported to them and subsequently sent back to the appropriate location. The demand for Service Tax was based on this activity, which the appellant argued did not constitute port services as defined during the relevant period. The appellant highlighted the necessity of inter-terminal handling for providing port services and contended that the demands were not justified due to various factors, including revenue neutrality, lack of invoicing, and the absence of received Service Tax.Contradictory Views of Authorities:The adjudicating authority had initially dropped the show-cause notice, emphasizing the essential nature of inter-terminal container handling for providing port services. However, the revisionary authority disagreed and confirmed the demands against the appellant, resulting in conflicting decisions. The appellant appealed this decision, citing the contradictory views of the authorities as a strong ground for a stay of the demand during the appeal process.Prima Facie Case for Waiver:After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the tribunal found that the services provided by the appellant during the relevant period did not qualify as port services and that the appellant had a strong case for a complete waiver of the disputed Service Tax, interest, and penalty. Consequently, the tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of the disputed amounts pending the appeal process, acknowledging the appellant's prima facie case for relief.