2019 (2) TMI 1376 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal favors appellant, sets aside Commissioner's orders under Finance Act. Legal precedents crucial.

The Tribunal allowed both appeals by setting aside the Commissioner's orders confirming demand, interest, and penalties under the Finance Act. The ... Non-payment of service tax - port services in respect of incoming and outgoing vessels and handling the import of export of the goods - Department entertained a view that all the services rendered by the assessee are liable to service tax but no service tax is being paid by the assessee on various income received by them - Held that:- This issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellant in appellant’s own case for previous period by this Tribunal COCHIN PORT TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN [2012 (6) TMI 67 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that Renting of immovable property services under which the impugned activity will be appropriately classified was introduced only on 1.6.2007 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Appeals against order confirming demand, interest, and penalties under Sections 76 to 78 of the Finance Act for non-payment of service tax on various income received by the appellant.Analysis:1. Identical Issues in Both Appeals:The appellants filed two appeals against the Commissioner's order confirming demand, interest, and penalties under Sections 76 to 78 of the Finance Act. The issue in both appeals was identical, leading to a common disposal.2. Factual Background:The appellant, engaged in providing port services, was alleged to have not paid service tax on all taxable services provided. The Department sought details of amounts received as license fee, upfront charges, rent on jetties, and estate rentals. The appellant had a license agreement with another entity for container cargo handling.3. Show-Cause Notice and Commissioner's Order:A show-cause notice was issued proposing to demand various amounts. After due process and document examination, the Commissioner confirmed the demand, interest, and penalties, prompting the appellant to file the appeals.4. Arguments and Precedents:The appellant's consultant argued that the impugned orders were contrary to binding judicial precedents favoring the appellant. Previous Tribunal decisions and High Court orders supported the appellant's position, indicating that the issue was settled in their favor.5. Decision and Rationale:After hearing both sides and reviewing the records and precedent decisions, the Tribunal found the issue was settled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeals against previous Tribunal decisions were dismissed by the High Court. Consequently, the impugned orders were deemed unsustainable in law, leading to the allowance of both appeals by setting aside the Commissioner's orders.6. Conclusion:The Tribunal's decision, delivered on 21/02/2019, favored the appellant by setting aside the orders confirming demand, interest, and penalties under the Finance Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal precedents and the binding nature of settled issues in determining the outcome of tax disputes.