CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's order and held that the service tax levy did not survive for the adjudicated periods. For the pre-01.07.2010 period there was no allegation of express authorization by a port for the appellant's activities and the activities did not fall within the pre-2010 conception of "port service." For the period on and after 01.07.2010 the Tribunal construed "port service" as requiring a "service" rendered within a port; neither demurrage (delayed unloading) nor despatch money (early departure) constituted a "service" within that definition. Consequently no taxable service was rendered by the appellant in respect of demurrage or despatch.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's order and held that the service tax levy did not survive for the adjudicated periods. For the pre-01.07.2010 period there was no allegation of express authorization by a port for the appellant's activities and the activities did not fall within the pre-2010 conception of "port service." For the period on and after 01.07.2010 the Tribunal construed "port service" as requiring a "service" rendered within a port; neither demurrage (delayed unloading) nor despatch money (early departure) constituted a "service" within that definition. Consequently no taxable service was rendered by the appellant in respect of demurrage or despatch.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
