2014 (6) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t services and did not discharge differential Service Tax liability for the period 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 in respect of Ports at Mandvi and Jamnagar. Since the issue involved in these two cases is of the very same assessee, we dispose the Stay Petitions by a common order. 3. Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant would take us through the various findings recorded by the adjudicating authority. He submits that the entire case which has been made out by the Revenue is on the ground that the appellant had executed an agreement for construction of jetty, Single Mooring Buoy (SBM) and other infrastructures in the Port of Mandvi and Jamngar with an exclusive agreement for usage. It is also submission that the appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s also his submission that agreement provides specifically that infrastructure created at the water front shall always be a property of GMB hence there is a difference in facts of the cases and as was in the earlier order. It is his submission that the action of the appellant in charging 20% of the actual wharfage charged by them to other port users is nothing but an adjustment given for the cost of infrastructure created by the private parties. It is his submission that subsequently in the case of M/s Dahej Harbour and Infrastructure Ltds case vide Stay Order dt.26.03.2004, this Bench had an occasion to consider the issue independently and had directed M/s Dahej Harbour and Infrastructure Ltd to deposit an amount of Rs.25 lakhs. He produc....