TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Custom House Agent wins appeal on Service Tax pre-deposit for stevedoring activities.</h1> <h3>SRI GANESH SHIPPING AGENCY Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MANGALORE</h3> SRI GANESH SHIPPING AGENCY Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MANGALORE - 2009 (15) S.T.R. 232 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Pre-deposit requirement of Service Tax/Penalties.2. Interpretation of 'Port Services' in relation to stevedoring activities.3. Justification for invoking the larger period for the demand.4. Request for waiver of pre-deposit amounts demanded in the impugned order.Issue 1: Pre-deposit requirement of Service Tax/PenaltiesThe appellant was directed to pre-deposit significant amounts towards Service Tax and penalties for a specific period. The appellant, a Custom House Agent, had been paying Service Tax at 15% on gross receipts as per a Public Notice. However, the revenue sought to levy Service Tax on the remaining 85% for stevedoring services, claiming it fell under 'Port Services'. The appellant argued that this issue had been stayed previously and cited precedents where stevedoring was not considered 'Port Services'. The appellant contended there was no intention to evade taxes, and thus, requested a waiver of the pre-deposit amounts.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'Port Services' in relation to stevedoring activitiesThe departmental representative argued that the appellant's activities fell within the scope of 'Port Services', despite conflicting decisions on the matter. However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's case. It noted that if Service Tax was already paid on gross receipts, the balance amount could not be taxed. Citing a Karnataka High Court decision, the Tribunal affirmed that stevedoring did not constitute 'Port Services'. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of the entire Service Tax and penalties until the appeal's final disposal, allowing a stay on further recoveries.Issue 3: Justification for invoking the larger period for the demandThe appellant asserted that there was no suppression of facts to evade taxes, questioning the need for invoking a larger period for the demand. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, agreed with the appellant's position on the merits. It found no justification for imposing penalties over a larger period, especially considering the precedents and the absence of tax evasion intent.Issue 4: Request for waiver of pre-deposit amounts demanded in the impugned orderFollowing a thorough review of the case, the Tribunal granted the appellant's request for waiving the pre-deposit amounts demanded in the impugned order. The Tribunal acknowledged the significant sum involved and scheduled the matter for final hearing on a specified date, allowing a stay on further recoveries until the appeal's resolution.
TaxTMI 