https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399227 Stevedoring and related cargo-handling work within a port area were treated as falling within port services under the pre-amendment definition, so service tax liability was sustained. The Court regarded the petitioner's contention that it acted only on client authorisation, and not under port authorisation, as a factual matter not effectively pursued at the notice stage, and relied on the Larger Bench view that such activities are classifiable as port services. The penalty under the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside because a substantial question of law remained pending before the Principal Seat, making it inappropriate to sustain penal consequences. en-us Fri, 11 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Oct 2020 10:50:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399227 Stevedoring and related cargo-handling work within a port area were treated as falling within port services under the pre-amendment definition, so service tax liability was sustained. The Court regarded the petitioner's contention that it acted only on client authorisation, and not under port authorisation, as a factual matter not effectively pursued at the notice stage, and relied on the Larger Bench view that such activities are classifiable as port services. The penalty under the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside because a substantial question of law remained pending before the Principal Seat, making it inappropriate to sustain penal consequences. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 11 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399227