TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax and penalties. The demand is for the period 16-7-2001 to 3 1-3-2004 and the same is in respect of "Port Services" as defined under Section 65(82) of the above Act. Port service, so defined, means "any services rendered by a port or other port or any person authorised by such port or other port, in any manner, in relation to vessel or goods". The appellants were licensed by the Madras Port Trust to undertake stevedoring activities within the port area during the above period. These activities were required to be performed only by a person authorised by the Port Trust within the port area. Admittedly, the appellants were so authorised under the above licence. The demand of Service tax is on the gross amount received by the appellants fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 as also of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Reliance has also been placed on the Board's Circular dated 9-7-2001, wherein it was clarified that the Dock Labour Board of the port provided services of labour for handling of goods and further that only those 5 charges which were specified in Para 2.1 of the circular constituted taxable value of port services. Learned Counsel has also relied on the circular dated 26-6-2002 of the Board, issued in relation to Paradip Port. In that circular, the Management Committee constituted by the Port Trust as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under the "Paradip Port, Clearing For warding and Handling Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1994" was held to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncillary operations carried out by the appellants. They had paid Service Tax only on the amount collected for the activity of unloading of cargo from the ship onto the dock. Hence there is no question of duplication of demand in this case. It is submitted that, for the period after 2001-02, the appellants have con ceded their liability and, therefore, they are not on any footing 4o contest the liability for the prior period. Learned SDR also seeks to discount the applicability of the circulars referred to by counsel. The stay order of the West Zonal Bench relates to repairs and maintenance of vessels with which the Port Trust was in no way concerned. According to learned SDR, those activities were not in the realm of stevedore activities or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of cargo from vessel onto dock. Clearly these are activities ancillary to the main activity undertaken by the Port Trust and, therefore, prima facie, the licence issued by the Port Trust to the appellants should he held to be ore authorising "port services" taxable under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. This liability cannot be contested on the strength of anything contained in Section 42 of the Major Port Trust Act. That provision lays down the various functions of the Port Trust. The Port Trust is authorised by the Act to undertake such functions by themselves or through duly authorised persons. Such persons are liable, under the Act, to discharge not only specified functions but also those ancillary functions which are required t....