TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tkara, learned SDR appearing for the revenue. 2. As per the facts on records, the appellant herein is engaged in the activities of Customs House Agent services and holds a valid licence from the Customs under the provisions of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984. The said services were made liable to Service tax with effect from 1997. The appellant accordingly got itself registered with the Service tax Department and started paying tax under the cover of Customs House Agent services. Due RT-12 returns were also filed by him. 3. However, as a result of certain investigations conducted by the revenue, they were issued a show cause notice dated 15th July, 2005 proposing Service tax for the period July 2003 to January 2005 on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Port are port services, for which any other person may be authorized to step into shoes of the Port. Inasmuch as the services being rendered by the appellant are not required to be rendered by the port, there is no authorization by the Port to the present appellant to render the said services. It cannot be concluded that the appellant is providing any port services. Further, licenses issued by the Port authorities to the appellant cannot be considered as authorization inasmuch as the licence issued is basically to enter into the Port area. The appellant's activities are more appropriately covered by the definition of Customs House Agents services as provided under Section 65(35) of the Finance Act. The appellant has merely arra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n authorized by such port. The services being provided by the appellant are handling, stevedoring, loading, unloading, tug hire and labour arrangement. Admittedly, such services are not required to be provided by the Port under The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. A perusal of the Section 35 of the said Act, as reproduced in the case of Homa Engineering Works, clearly shows that power of the Board to execute the works and provide appliances do not include the above activities being undertaken by the appellant. As such, it cannot be said that the services being provided by the appellant were covered by the Port services. Further, the Tribunal in the above case has observed that the authorization from the Port must be in respect of the services w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h as the appellant is free to charge any amount from its customers for the services being provided by it and such collections are not regulated by the Port. In this view of the matter, the licence given to the appellant cannot be held to an authorization. 8. Licence means "a permission given for specific purpose; the licence holder cannot be interpreted as having the powers or authority of the person issuing the licence, unless the licence specifically mentions about it. To take a simple analogy the person issued with driving licence, under no stretch of imagination, can be said to be functioning as Road Transport Authority. Authorization may be issued by way of licence, but not all licences are authorizations. Hence, the licences issued b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out clearly the difference between an authorization given under Sec. 42 of MPTA and a licence given under regulations under Sec. 123 of MPTA. 9. In the light of the foregoing discussions and applying the ratio of law declared by the Tribunal in the case of Homa Engineering Works, we are of firm view that activities undertaken by the appellant does not fall under the category of Port Services. 10. As regards the limitation, we find that the services being provided by the appellant were considered by the Department in the year 2001 and opinion was formed that the same are covered by the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agent services. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dated 12-3-2001 directed the appellant to get t....