Jurisdictional fact under the port definition required fresh findings before service tax liability could be decided.

Liability under the service tax definition of "port" depended on whether the impugned premises fell within a major port under section 65(81) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 2(q) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. Because the adjudicating authority had not given a detailed finding on that foundational jurisdictional fact, the matter could not be finally decided. The Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh, reasoned determination of the premises' statutory status and for reconsideration of the appeal on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the matter required remand for a fresh decision on whether the impugned premises constituted a major port under the governing service tax definition.

Analysis: The definition of "port" under section 65(81) of the Finance Act, 1994 incorporates the meaning assigned in clause (q) of section 2 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The determination whether the relevant land fell within a major port was treated as a foundational issue going to the root of the liability. As the adjudicating authority had not dealt with that question in detail, the Tribunal found that the matter could not be finally resolved without a reasoned finding on the statutory status of the premises.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a detailed determination of whether the impugned premises was a major port and for reconsideration of the appeal on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The controversy was sent back for fresh adjudication on the foundational jurisdictional question, and the appeal succeeded only to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where liability depends on a statutory jurisdictional fact that has not been examined with adequate findings, the matter may be remanded for a fresh, reasoned determination before the substantive tax issue is decided.

---