https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755469 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that appellant's container handling services did not qualify as port services under service tax classification. The tribunal found that while port authority MICT actually provided terminal handling services and charged service tax, appellant merely engaged port authorities on behalf of clients without being an authorized person within port area. Following precedent in VELJI P. SONS case, the tribunal ruled appellant's activities fell outside port service definition, which requires services to be provided within port by port authorities or authorized persons. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:19:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755469 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that appellant's container handling services did not qualify as port services under service tax classification. The tribunal found that while port authority MICT actually provided terminal handling services and charged service tax, appellant merely engaged port authorities on behalf of clients without being an authorized person within port area. Following precedent in VELJI P. SONS case, the tribunal ruled appellant's activities fell outside port service definition, which requires services to be provided within port by port authorities or authorized persons. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755469