2007 (9) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r day for every day of default was also imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the lower authority. Therefore, the appellants have come before this Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri V. Raghuraman, the learned Advocate, appeared for the appellants and Smt. Sudha Koka, the learned SDR, for the Revenue. 4. We heard both sides. The appellants have their Port Railway Yard. The Railways collect railway siding charges from the users and remit the same to the appellant. The appellant contended before the Appellate Authority that the 'Railway siding charges' are distinguished from the 'Railway haulage charges' for rail borne goods, local hau....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the heading Port Services without establishing the applicability of Port services to railway siding charges. It was urged that the appellant is receiving railway siding charges from the railway authorities towards utilization of 'Railway Marshalling Yard', which is owned by the appellants, who had allowed the Railways for construction of railway siding under an Agreement. Thus, there is no provision of any service at all by the appellant in the instant case and they are receiving certain amounts towards railway siding charges for the utilization of railway marshalling yard. As regards 'Port Services', all services provided by the Port in any manner in relation to vessel or goods would be covered under the above heading. In the instant cas....