TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue be considered and settled by a Larger Bench. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the records before the Hon'ble President to constitute a Larger Bench to consider and decide upon the following issues :- (a) Whether any provisions other than clause (q) of section (2) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 or any provisions other than clause (4) of section (3) of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 are applicable to interpretation of "port service" defined under section 65(82) of the Finance Act, 1994; (b) Whether stevedoring in a major or minor port is a "port service" within the meaning of this expression defined under section 65(82) of the Finance Act, 1994; (c) (If the answer to (b) is in the affirmative) Whether activities/operations like intercarting (transportation of cargo after its unloading from a vessel, to a place of storage within the port area), storage of cargo in plots allotted by the Port, blending of different grades of coal in the port area and other kinds of cargo handling in the port area can be held to be services ancillary to stevedoring and whether, ipso facto, these, services can be classified as "port services" un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act inasmuch as the appellant was free to charge any amount from its customers for the services being provided by it and such collections were not regulated by the Port. In this view of the matter, the license given to the appellant was held to be no authorisation . The questions referred to by the referral order do not appear to have been involved in Velji's case when the appellants in that case were acting as CHA and services rendered by them were hiring of the barges, cranes, forklifts as recorded in para 2 of the order of the Tribunal as aforesaid. The question involved in that case was whether services provided by a CHA is "port service". It was held by Tribunal that activities of CHA appellant shall not fall under port service. 1.3 Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal in Velji P. & Sons case. Revenue carried the matter to the Apex Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 24-3-2008 dismissed Civil Appeals No. 2429-2430 of 2008 (D No. 1300 of 2008) of Revenue passing following order on the ground that Revenue did not come in appeal to Apex Court against the decision of the Tribunal in Homa Engineering v. CCE, Mumbai [2007] (7) S.T.R. 546 (Tri-Mum)] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rustees could either perform themselves or authorize any other person to perform. On this basis, it was argued that such activities were to be treated as "port services". On the other hand, the assessee argued that only those services which were specified under section 42(1) of the Act could be provided by the Board of Trustees by themselves or through an authorized person. Most of these services were in relation to goods and a few services were in relation to vessels. The Departmental Representative referred to the latter category of services mentioned under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 42 of the Act, reading : "piloting, hauling, mooring, remooring , hooking, or measuring of vessels or any other service in respect of vessels". He argued that the expression "any other service in respect of vessels" was wide enough to cover the assessee's operations on the vessels. On the other hand, the party's counsel argued that the expression should be read ejusdem generis with the specific terms like piloting, hauling, mooring etc. It was pointed out that piloting, hauling, mooring etc. were activities directly connected with the entry or exit of the vessel and, therefore, the expr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws of the Tribunal in para 11 of its order in respect of decision in Konkan Marine Agencies case 2007 (8) S.T.R. 472 (Tri.-Bang.). It is therefore desirable to reproduce Para 11 of the referral order as under for appreciation of different aspects of the matter involved in that case: "11. Reverting to Velji case, we find that the services in question were rendered by the party within the limits of the port of Pipavav , a minor port in the State of Gujarat, governed by the provisions of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 (Act No. 15 of 1908). The provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (Act No. 38 of 1963) are not applicable to the port of Pipavav . In clause (82) of section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 ["port service" means any service rendered by a port or other port or any person authorized by such port or other port, in any manner, in relation to a vessel or goods."], the underlined words were inserted w.e.f . 14-5-2003 by the Finance Act, 2003. The expression 'other port' was defined thus : "other port" has the meaning assigned to "port" in clause (4) of section 3 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 (15 of 1908), but does not include the "port" defined in clause (81)". This definition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pex Court and has filed SLP (Civil) No. 19808/2008. By an order dated 16-3-09 leave was granted by Apex Court to appeal. In the course of hearing of reference by larger bench, it was stated by both sides that appeal before Apex Court is awaiting decision. Genesis of law noticed by referring Bench 3. In para 13 of the referral order, referring Bench brought out genesis of law relating to taxability of "port service" under Finance Act, 1994 to explain meaning of the term 'Port services' as under :- "13. Since 14-5-2003, the law of service tax as regards "port services" does not discriminate between major and minor ports. A major port is one defined under section 2(q) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and the same is covered by the expression 'port' occurring in the definition of "port service" under section 65(82) of the Finance Act, 1994. A minor port is one defined under section 3(4) of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 and the same is covered by the expression 'other port' occurring in the definition of "port service" under section 65(82) ibid. It appears to us that, as rightly submitted by the ld. Sr. Consultant for the Revenue, one need not look into other provisions of the M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. Broadly speaking, it would appear that all services otherwise taxable would qualify to be "port services" when rendered within the territorial limits of a "port" or "other port". The view taken approximately to this effect in CBEC's Letter No. B-11/1/2002-TRU, dated 1-8-2002 is plausible." [Emphasis supplied] 3.1 In para 14 of the referral order, the Bench stated the law relating to classification of taxable services under section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994 and analysed the characteristics of 'port services' appearing under section 65(82) of the Finance Act, 1994 in following terms : "14............Taxable services are classified under section 65 of the Act. Where, in a given case, the question arises as to under which head (under section 65) the service under consideration has to be classified, and shall be taken of the provisions of section 65A of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 65A provides that, when for any reason a taxable service is prima facie classifiable under two or more clauses of section 65, classification shall be effected as follows :- . (a) the sub-clause which provides the most specific description shall be preferr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise taxable will be a port service when rendered within the limits of a port by the Port or a person authorized by it." [Emphasis supplied] Arguments on behalf of appellants 4. Both the sides were heard in great length from 30-9-2010 till 4-10-2010 and arguments of both sides are hereinafter summarized : 5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Arvind Dattar appearing on behalf of the assessees submitted that what that was not the provision prior to 1-7-2010 cannot be applied to answer the questions framed by referral order. From 1-7-2010 any service rendered within a port or other port in any manner became taxable while prior to that period, services rendered by a port or any authorised person by the port in any manner in relation to vessel or goods were taxable. The term 'port' defined by section 65(50) of the Finance Act, 1994 has meaning as that has been assigned to such term in clause (q) of section 2 of the 1963 Act (38 of 1963). The term "port services' meant for taxation by section 65(72)(zn) was defined by section 65(51) of the Finance Act, 1994 to read "port services" means any service rendered by a port or any person authorised by the port, in any manner, in relation to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/2002-Cus., dated 29-11-2002. So also stevedoring service is not "port service" since stevedoring service provider is not authorised person. Persons who are given licence shall only be liable under the law and no other person who is not licensee shall be liable to service tax for which stevedoring service is not port service. [Ref : Page 148 of Paper Book]. To support his argument, Sri Dattar , Ld. Sr. Counsel relied on the decisions in South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. v. CCE - 2010 (17) S.T.R. 170 (Tri. - Bang.), Sirsilk Ltd. v. Textile Committee - AIR 1989 SC 317 E, Om ReC (Minors), (1993) 3 WLR 249, Trade Notice No. 35/2007 of Madurai Commissionerate. 5.3 Sr. Counsel Sri Venkatraman inviting attention para 13 of the referral order submitted that reference is not made in relation to authorisation issued. Section 123 of the 1963 Act and relevant provisions of the 1908 Act have similar provision. Section 123 of the 1963 Act does not use the words "authorised person" and that section is independent of Section 42 of the said Act. Adopting summary of argument of the ld. Sr. Counsel Shri Arvind Dattar submitted that the words in any manner do not qualify the words "authorise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vided under Section 42 of 1963 Act is to be given due weight while deciding taxability because Board of Trustee may not provide the services prescribed by that section. Section 42(3) has not given sanction to Madras Port Trust. For the purpose of Taxation under Section 65(105)(zn) of the Finance Act, 1994 the Provisions of 1963 Act & the 1908 Act are to be applied. Arguments on behalf of Revenue 6. The Special Counsel Shri Sridhararaman on behalf of Revenue argued that reference is maintainable and Konkan Marine Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka being on different facts that shall not be a binding precedent in respect of the questions referred by referral order. Further, that judgment is awaiting decision of the Apex Court. Ports function through authorised persons wherever that is considered necessary by the ports. The judgment rendered in Homa Engg. case by Tribunal was the service provided by a Minor Port and the decision of the Tribunal in Velji P. & Sons case relates to a case of clearing house agent. The present reference is for answering whether provisions of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and the 1908 Act are of any assistance to decide taxability under the 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Courts. For such reason. Revenue pointed out that dismissal of the appeal in Velji's case does not operate as a bar to consider the issues by Larger Bench. 6.3 Relying on the Apex Court decision, Sri Agarwal, learned JCDR submitted that in para 44(vi) of the Apex Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) held that once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. Such decision based on the logic in para 41 of the judgment which reads as under : "Whenever this Court has felt inclined to apply its mind to the merits of the order put in issue before it though it may be inclined to affirm the same, it is customary with this Court to grant leave to appeal and thereafter dismiss the appeal itself (and not merely the petition for special leave) though at times the orders granting leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal are contained in the same order and at times the orders are quite brief. Nevertheless, the order shows the exercise of appellate jurisdi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench assumes jurisdiction to decide the issues following para 38 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., 2004 (164) E.L.T 375 (S.C.) - Finally, pleading of ld. JCDR was there was no legal infirmity in reference to the Larger Bench and larger bench has proper jurisdiction to answer the questions before it. Submissions of Revenue on first question 6.6 On the first question i.e. (a) of the referral order, Sri Agarwal, Ld. JCDR, contended that while interpreting the expression 'port service' as defined under Section 65(82) of the 1994 Act, there is no need to refer to the 1963 Act or the 1908 Act except Section 2(q) and Section 3(4) thereof respectively to which the legislature itself has explicitly referred. Any attempt to adopt 1963 Act or 1908 Act by the Tribunal would be unreasonable and it would be a transgression into the legislative domain which is not permitted, as has been held in several judicial pronouncements. If the legislature wanted the word 'authorized' to be interpreted different from the meaning as it has been in Section 42 of the 1963 Act or elsewhere in the 1908 Act, there was nothing to prevent the legislature....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, the 1944 Act on the one hand and the 1963 Act and the 1908 Act on the other are not in pari materia and therefore, these two legislations cannot be employed to understand the expressions of the 1994 Act except to the extent of definition of the terms "port" and "other port" used in the 1994 Act. 6.10 According to Sri Agarwal for understanding the scope of the term "port service", following circulars issued by the CBEC amply clarify the scope, without the need to go to Section 35 or 42 of the 1963 Act: (1) According to Circular No. B-11/1/2001 dated 9-7-2001, Port services generally consist of port and dock services (these are for services rendered in relation to vessels), cargo handling and storage services, railway haulage services, and container handling services (these are for services rendered in relation to goods). The Dock Labour Board of the Port provides service of labour for handling of goods. The port or the person authorised by the port rendering these services is the service provider. Some of the specific charges for the services rendered in respect of port services are as follows : (i) Port and dock charges consisting of berthing an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whose job is to load and unload ships; a docker, verb (stevedored, stevedoring) to load or unload (a ship or a ship's cargo). 18c: from Spanish estibador, from estibar to pack or stow. The Illustration in the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 makes the position very clear. A stevedore hires dock labour from the port trust and provides such labour to his client. In this case the service provided, by the port trust to stevedore and by stevedore to client, both fall in the category of port service. Therefore, stevedore is entitled to take credit of service tax paid by the port trust. Revenue thus pleaded that "stevedoring" is a "port service". So far as the next sub-question is concerned Shri Agrawal argued that Hon'ble Karnataka HC has held in Konkan Marine case that a stevedore is creation of Section 42 of the 1963 Act and in exercise of power under that section, Port issues stevedoring license". He placed following provisions in the Madras Port Trust (Licensing of Stevedores) Regulations, 1987 to support his contention :- 4. Issue of Stevedoring Licence : ** ** ** (2) No stevedore shall be allowed to work on Board any vessel in the port except with such lic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of unsatisfactory performance by the licensed stevedore on any particular vessel/vessels and the working of the vessel/vessels resulted in under utilisation of the port or affected the turn round of the vessel and/or caused delay to other vessels waiting or working; ** ** ** 6.12 According to Sri Agarwal, it is clear that the purpose of the stevedoring license is not limited to a mere permission from the Port Trust given to the appellants for entry in the port area; rather it is clearly in the nature of an authorization from the Port Trust, authorizing the appellants to carry out the various services in relation to vessels and goods. For example, under the 1963 Act the regulations inter alia require them to employ at least one experienced Foreman to supervise the stevedoring operations; and also to make necessary arrangements regarding the stacking of cargo and storage of cargo on board vessels show that the objective of the Port Trust is not limited to simply granting permission to the appellants but extends to ensuring that the stevedoring operations are done and completed in an effective manner. The Regulation No. 18 demonstrates that the licensee stevedore is bou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue, it was summarily placed by the ld. Counsels for the appellants that port services being provided in the port, provisions of 1963 Act and 1908 Act cannot be given go bye Loading-cum-unloading and landing do not come in the purview of stevedoring. Separate tariff is provided for vessels and cargo under the respective Port Trust Law, stevedoring do not provide service. Port Trust provides facilities to provide service by stevedores to their clients. Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka holds the field. Stevedoring Licensing Regulation, 1987 Act framed by Madras Port Trust precisely speaks what stevedoring means and all activities carried out in a port is not port services. The taxes paid for service of Dock Labour Board clearly throws light that stevedores supervise labour to get work done by the port. Their prayer was to answer all questions in favour of the appellants. Answer to Reference 8. Maintainability 8.1 Interpreting provisions of Section 129C(5) of Customs Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P.) Ltd. - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 322 (S.C.) has laid down the law to resolve conflict of decisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he difference as has been held in the case of Govind Ram Agarwal v. Collector of Customs - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 215 (Cal). Difference is precondition for reference and Section 129C(5) allows members of the Tribunal to recommend to the president only when there is difference of opinion. 8.4 In ST Appeal No. 532 of 2006 in the case of M/s. Guljag Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, ST Appeal No. 32 of 2007 in the case of Agauta Sugar & Chemicals v. CCE, Noida - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 138 (T) and in ST Appeal No. 88 of 2007 in the case of Jaipur Glass & Potteries v. CCE, Jaipur on 24-4-2009 issued by Misc. Order No. 86/09-SM(BR) [2009 (238) E.L.T. 250 (T)] it has been held by Tribunal as under : (1) Whenever there is a difference of opinion amongst the Members of a Bench on an issue, the Bench has to formulate such issue and ask registry to place the matter before the President of the Tribunal to do the needful in terms of Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. (2) It is obvious that it is the prerogative of the President either to refer the matter to third Member or constitute a Larger Bench in case of such difference of opinion or hear the matter himself, and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The order of Tribunal merged on the point in controversy only. A brief of such fact has been depicted at the beginning of this order in Para 1.2 hereinbefore. For appreciation of Doctrine of merger, it would be beneficial to reproduce Paras 40-44 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying down the law in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) as under : "40. A petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons. For example, it may be rejected (i) as barred by time, or (ii) being a defective presentation, (iii) the petitioner having no locus standi to file the petition, (iv) the conduct of the petitioner disentitling him to any Indulgence by the Court, (iv) the conduct of the petitioner having no disentitling him to any indulgence by the Court, (iv) the question raised by the petitioner for consideration by this Court being not fit, for consideration or deserving being dealt with by the Apex Court of the country and so on. The expression often employed by this Court while disposing of such petitions are - "heard and dismissed", "dismissed", "dismissed as barred by time" and so on. May be that at the adm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pinion in conflict with or in departure from the view taken by this Court because permitting to do so would be subversive of judicial discipline and an affront to the order of this Court. However this would be so not by reference to the doctrine of merger. 41. Once a special leave petition has been granted, the doors for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court have been let open. The order impugned before the Supreme Court becomes an order appealed against. Any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and would attract the applicability of doctrine of merger. It would not make a difference whether the order is one of reversal or of modification or of dismissal affirming the order appealed against. It would also not make any difference if the order is a speaking or non-speaking one. Whenever this Court has felt inclined to apply its mind to the merits of the order put in issue before it though it may be inclined to affirm the same, it is customary with this Court to grant leave to appeal and thereafter dismiss the appeal itself (and not merely the petition for special leave) though at times the orders granting leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the Judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate Jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary Jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger, an order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....signed to such term in clause (q) of Section 2 of the 1963 Act (38 of 1963). Except to this extent, the 1994 Act has not sought aid of the 1963 Act no adoption or reference to any other provisions of that Act for levy of service tax. 9.2 While at the initial stage, "port services" provided by a Major port or any person authorised by that port became taxable, the services provided by "other ports" were brought to tax net with effect from 14-5-2003 by Finance Act, 2003. The taxing entry u/s 65(105)(zn) under the 1994 Act underwent amendment to give effect to such proposal. Meaning of the term "other port" was provided by Section 65(76) of the 1994 Act to mean the same as that has been assigned to "port" in clause (4) of Section 3 of the 1908 Act but not to mean the port defined in clause (80) of the said Act. The 1994 Act to this limited extent of meaning of "other port" sought assistance of the 1908 Act. Consequently, after 14-5-2003 the "ports service" provided to any person by a "port" or "other port" or any person authorised by such port or other port in relation to vessels or goods became taxable in terms of Section 65(105)(zn) of the 1994 Act. 9.3 For the purpose of knowi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....69, PP. 684-685:1964 (5) SCR 387). 9.5 Statutes having common object may provide aid to each other. But different statutes seeking to achieve different objects rule out interpretation of expressions used in one statute with reference to their use in another statute and decisions rendered with reference to construction of one Act cannot be applied with reference to the provisions of another Act, when the two Acts are not in pari materia (ref. Ram Narayan v. U.P. - AIR 1957 SC 18, P.23). It cannot be presumed that the Legislature while enacting a statute intended to import meaning from other statute for interpretation of provisions of the former statute unless otherwise stated in the former statute. When there is no ambiguity in interpreting object of a statute it is not permissible to refer for the purpose of its construction, provisions of any other legislation. An effort to construe legislation on one subject with the help of other legislation on different subject is to defeat the purport of the former statute unless both the statute serves the common object. Only by incorporation or adoption of provisions of a statute for the construction of other, no aid is permissible. Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Collector of C.Ex. & Cus., Madurai [2000 (126) E.L.T. 908 (Tribunal)] that it is no sound principle of construction to interpret an expression used in one Act with reference to its use in another Act, since the meaning of words and expressions used in an Act must take their colour from the context in which they appear. In Bharat Hansraj Gandhi v. Additional Collector of C. Ex. - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 462 (Kar.) it has been held that it is not a sound principle of construction to interpret the expressions with reference to their use in another Act, when the two Acts are not in pari materia. Apex Court in CCE, Nagpur v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., 2009 (237) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.) has held that the definition of one statute having different object, purpose and scheme cannot be applied mechanically to another statute. As stated above, the object of Excise Act is to raise revenue for which various products are differently classified in New Tariff Act. 9.7 It is well known to law that the Legislature has power to define a word even artificially [see; Kishanlal v. State of Rajasthan - AIR 1990 SC 2269, p. 2270 : 1990 Supp SCC 742; CIT v. Sundaram Spinning Mills - AIR 2000 SC 490, p 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt or other port to submit to different classes. 9.9 The phrase "in relation to" has been construed by Apex Court to be of the widest amplitude. In M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, (1988) 2 SCC 299 at 302, Hon'ble Court observed as under: "The expressions 'pertaining to', 'in relation to' and 'arising out of, used in the deeming provision, are used in the expansive sense. The expression 'arising out of has been used in the sense that it comprises purchase of shares and lands from income arising out of the Kanpur Undertaking. The words "pertaining to" and "in relation to" have the same wide meaning and have been used interchangeably for among other reasons, which may include avoidance of repetition of the same phrase in the same clause or sentence, a method followed in good drafting. The word 'pertain' is synonymous with the word 'relate'. The term 'relate' is also defined as meaning to bring into association or connection with. The expression 'in relation to' (so also 'pertaining to'), is a very broad expression which presupposes another subject matter. These are words of comprehensiveness which might have both a direct significance as well as an i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifferent statutes, question (a) needs to be answered in favour of the assessee. This is inconvincible when the text and context of the statutes are noticeably different. The Trade Notice No. 35/2007 was pressed into service by Shri Dattar to submit that the said Trade Notice requires authorized person only to be brought to tax but not the stevedores. Being guided by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Konkan Marine case it is not practicable to agree to his proposition. When object of the legislation on the subject is clear, there is no need to press circulars into service. It is therefore not possible to answer question (a) in favour of the assessee but is required to be answered in favour of Revenue. 9.14 Ld. Counsel Shri Venkatraman relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CCE, Jallandhar v. United Plastomers - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 229 (P&H) submitted that the services provided in a port unless directly or indirectly connected with port services that shall not be brought into the purview of port services. Such aspect was examined in the light of the cited decision. The matter before the Hon'ble High Court was in relation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Such rule of interpretation laid down by Apex Court in Bihta Cooperative Developments and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. v. Bank of Bihar - AIR 1967 (S.C.) 389 has been given salutary effect by this order. So also to understand the meaning of the essential element "in relation to" used in the taxing provision under the 1994 Act, guidance is available from the Apex Court decision in Doy-pak Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, (1988) 2 SCC 299. 9.16 Ld. Sr. Counsel also placed reliance on paras 16 & 17 of the judgment in the case of Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India and Others - (1988) Supp. SCC 30 to submit that amendment to law is to be read with reference to the existing provisions. In the course of hearing, it was noticed that there was only one amendment by Finance Act, 2003 to include "other port" providing "port services" to be taxable. The consequence of amendment were examined and it was noticed that the service provided by a minor port which was termed by law as "other port" did not bring any difference to the definition of port service while the range and magnitude of service provided by Major Port and Minor Port are as per 1963 Act and 1908 Act. Answer to q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ys, or vice versa, as a railway administration under the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890); (e) piloting, hauling, mooring, remooring, hooking, or measuring of vessels or any other service in respect of vessels; and (f) developing and providing, subject to the previous approval of the Central Government, infrastructure facilities for ports. (2) A Board may, if so requested by the owner, take charge of the goods for the purpose of performing the service or services and shall give a receipt in such form as the Board may specify. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the Board may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, authorise any person to perform any of the services mentioned in sub-section (1) on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. (3A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), a Board may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, enter into any agreement or other arrangement, whether by way of partnership, joint venture or in any other manner with, any body corporate or any other person to perform any of the services and functions assigned to the Board under thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... services for taxation under the category of port services. By whatever name such services are called is not material to the charging provision of the 1994 Act. When the service is not provided in any manner is in relation to vessels or goods that serve purpose of the port and taxable. Legislature under the provisions of the 1994 Act, thoughtfully by necessary implication, to avoid exercise of classification of cluster services provided by a port or other port under various nomen - clatures intended to bring entire cluster of services under one class of "port services" except to the extent of different classifications recognised by the 1994 Act. Accordingly, any service provided by a 'Fort' or 'other port' fall under one class of service called the "port services". Nomenclature of service not being decisive, charging provision of the 1994 Act prevails. It is not possible for legislature to provide an exhaustive list of service to be classified as "port service". Therefore, legislature defined the term port service using the terms "any service" rendered by a port "in any manner" "in relation to" vessel or goods" to bring to the net of taxation. Innovative means to name a service doe....