TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bulk Terminal Ltd. (EBTL) are engaged in providing various taxable services under Section 69 of the finance Act 1994. During the course of Audit it was noticed that Respondent was also charging facility charges @0.18 USD on the basis of Gross Registered Tonnage of vessel per day at the birth in respect of other cargo, whereas, such "facility charges" @0.18 USD was not charged by Respondent in respect of vessels carrying the captive cargo of M/s Essar Steel (India) Ltd.(ESTIL), resulting in short payment of Service tax on such charges. It was alleged that payment of Service tax on Terminal Charges (Vessel Related Charges) without including the facility charges on Port Service provided to M/s ESTIL appeared to be not correct in accordance wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... especially when no evidence has been placed on record to support the case that such "facility charges" have already been included in the agreed uniform rate. 2.1 He also submits that the assessment to Service tax is based on the value of taxable services arrived in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act , 1994. From the harmonious reading of the language used in Section 67 of the Act that, the terms "consideration" in the said section has not been used merely in terms of money alone, but also in other terms, in as much as, while clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 67, exclusively speaks of "consideration in money" the remaining two clauses viz. (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 67 envisages consideration in terms, other th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notices, the adjudicating authority ought to have dropped the demand on other ground also, which is submitted in the cross objection, the same is reproduced below: - (a) The entire matter was purely revenue neutral as M/s ESTIL, its own group company, was entitled to the entire credit of service tax paid by it. In view of this, no demand of service tax could have been raised as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in following matters:- * Commissioner Vs. Coca Cola - 2017 (213) ELT 490 (SC) * Commissioner Vs. Textile Corporation - 2008(231) ELT 195 (SC) * Nirlon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner - 2013(320)ELT 22 (SC) (b) The demand is also not sustainable on limitation. All the relevant facts were always in the knowledge of the department as succ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to M/s ESTIL being sole consideration will alone be liable to Service tax and no any other notional amount will be added on assumption and presumption basis. In support of our this view, we place reliance on the decisions of Vimla Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C.EX. Raipur [2020 (41) GSTL 354 (Tri. - Del.), wherein it is held in Paragraph 42 as under:- 42. It is difficult to accept the reasoning given by the Commissioner for not accepting the rate agreed under the work orders to conclude that the Appellant had not disclosed the correct consideration for the taxable service. In the first instance, this reasoning is incorrect and secondly even the summary contained in the chart shows that in some cases the Appellant charged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be entitled to a fee escalation of Rs. 21/per MT in respect of the raw materials handled by the respondent. We agree with the contention of the respondent that alleged charges are already taken into consideration while arriving at combined uniform rate. In this context we would also refer to Explanation to clause 2 of Rule 5 of Service tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 which clarifies that the value of taxable services is the total amount of consideration consisting of all components of the taxable service and it is immaterial that the details of individual components of the total consideration is indicated separately in the invoice. Therefore we don't find any force in the department's contention that respondent has not included the....