TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s. St. John Heavy Equipment Ltd., for loading, unloading and transporting both export and import cargos. 2.2 Entertaining thus a doubt that the handling of export cargo was not amenable to Service Tax being an exempted service, the Department issued Show Cause Notices, as under: - (1) Show Cause Notice No. 26/ADC/ST/2010 dated 20.10.2010 covering the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010; and (2) Show Cause Notice No. 22/ADC/ST/2011 dated 15.09.2011 covering the period from April 2010 to March 2011 proposing, inter alia, that the appellant was not eligible to take CENVAT Credit of the input services since no separate accounts of input service were maintained in terms of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 as, apparently, common input services were used for providing both taxable and exempted services and that, therefore, the appellant was liable to pay duty on the value of services rendered and received in respect of export of cargo, equal to 8% or 6%, along with applicable interest and penalty. 2.3 It appears that the appellant filed its reply in response to the Show Cause Notices, but however, not satisfied with the replies, the Adjudicating Authority, after du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Ltd. v. Collector of C.Ex., Allahabad [1999 (111) E.L.T. 48 (Tribunal)]; (e) JCT Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh [1999 (114) E.L.T. 618 (Tribunal)]; (f) Commissioner of C.Ex., Vadodara v. Steelco Gujarat Ltd. [2000 (121) E.L.T. 557 (Tribunal)]; (g) Samcar Glass Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur [2001 (128) E.L.T. 464 (Tri. - Del.)]; (h) Commissioner of C.Ex., Baroda v. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. [2002 (144) E.L.T. 573 (Tri. - Mum.)]; (i) Punjab Stainless Steel Industries v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi-I [2008 (226) E.L.T. 587 (Tri. - Del.)]; (j) Commissioner of C.Ex, Chennai v. Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. [2001 (138) E.L.T. 209 (Tri. - Chennai)]; (k) The India Cements Ltd., Sobha Developers Ltd. & ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad & ors. [Appeal No. E/483/2010 & ors. - Final Order Nos. 85 to 99/2012 dated 08.02.2012 - CESTAT, Bangalore]; (l) Sobha Developers Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., LTU, Bangalore (Appeal No. ST/569/2008 & ors.) [2011-TIOL-1170-CESTAT-BANG]. 6.1 Per contra, the Learned Deputy Commissioner for the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities. He would also submit that the scope of Section 65(10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upplied by us, in bold, for clarity) 9. The definition of "taxable service" as per Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994, reads as under: - "(105) "taxable service" means any service provided or to be provided, - ....." and sub-clause (zr) of Section 65(105) of the Act is extracted hereinbelow: - "(zr) to any person, by a cargo handling agency in relation to cargo handling services;" 10. The contentions of the Learned Counsel are to be examined in the light of the above definition to ascertain whether the cargo handling service alleged to be rendered by the appellant could be considered as handling the cargo meant for export and thereby, an exempted service. 11. The Learned Departmental Representative has referred to the provisions of Section 66 ibid., which reads as under: - "Section 66. Charge of service tax - There shall be levied a tax (hereinafter referred to as the service tax) at the rate of twelve per cent. of the value of taxable services referred to in sub-clauses (a), (d), (e), (f), (g,) (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r), (s), (t), (u), (v), (w), (x), (y), (z), (za), (zb), (zc), (zh), (zi), (zj), (zk), (zl), (zm), (zn), (zo), (z....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts to 'exemption' and consequently, whether the same could be brought within the definition under Rule 2(e) ibid. 14.2 The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s. Konkan Marine Agencies (supra), while interpreting the scope of cargo handling service, has held as under: - "14. A bare reading of the aforesaid definition further makes it clear as day that in any case handling of export cargo would not attract service tax at all. After having gone through the aforesaid definition, it leaves no amount of doubt in our mind that such a service tax could not have been levied on the assessee which was handling loading of cargo, meant for export purpose." 14.3 Further, in the context of Service Tax levy on export of services, the Board vide Circular No. 56/5/2003-S.T. dated 25.04.2003 has clarified as under: - "3. The Board has examined the issue. In this connection I am directed to clarify that the Service Tax is destination based consumption tax and it is not applicable on export of services. Export of services would continue to remain tax free even after withdrawal of Notification No. 6/99, dated 9-4-99. Further it is clarified that service consumed/provided in India in....