Exemption for services 'within a port' applies to other ports too, absent an express limit to major ports.

Notification No. 31/2010-ST was construed as extending the exemption for specified port services rendered "within a port" to services provided in an other port as well as a major port, because the notification did not expressly limit the benefit to major ports alone. The Third Member accepted the wider interpretation of the phrase and held that the exemption was not confined to major ports. On that basis, the earlier view could not stand and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption under Notification No. 31/2010-ST for specified port services provided 'within a port' extends to services rendered in an 'other port' as well as a 'major port'; and whether the appeal was to be allowed in consequence of the Third Member's opinion.

Analysis: The point of difference turned on the construction of the expression 'within a port' in Notification No. 31/2010-ST. The opinion of the Third Member accepted the wider view that the notification is not confined to services rendered only in a major port and that the exemption also covers services provided within an other port. In view of that interpretation, the earlier order could not stand.

Conclusion: The exemption applied to services provided within an other port also, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification using the expression 'within a port' is to be construed as covering services rendered in an other port unless the notification expressly restricts the benefit to a major port alone.

---