2010 (5) TMI 495

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to 31-3-2006 under the head 'Port Services'. The Commissioner also demanded applicable interest on the service tax demanded under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). He imposed penalties at the rate of Rs. 100 per day during the period of default under section 76 of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 1,000 under section 77.   2. The facts of the case are that CPT had entered into an agreement with M/s. India Gateway Terminal Pvt. Ltd., (IGTPL) to develop and operate a container terminal at Cochin port christened the Rajiv Gandhi Container Terminal (RGCT). The agreement was for a period of 30 years. As per the agreement, IGTPL shall pay to CPT a royalty equivalent to 33.3 per cent of the gross revenue earned by it every month fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s paid by IGTPL. In the circumstances, there could not be further levy of service tax on the portion of tax suffered amount shared between IGTPL and the appellant.   (ii) The Commissioner had demanded tax on amounts received as rent for use of jetties without justification. The impugned amounts were received by the appellants towards annual license fee for allowing the parties to construct and use the jetties. As there was no service provided by the appellant in respect of either vessels or goods, and further, fees in question was collected under Cochin Port Trust Jetti Regulations which was a regulatory mechanism to ensure that vessels/waterways were not obstructed through indiscriminate construction of jetties, there was no scope fo....