TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charges. The Gazette of Gujarat Notification No. GMB/T/12(25)/7 dated 10.02.2005 specified that Rs. 1,96,00,000 shall be adjusted against dredging and jetty maintenance and repairs incurred by M/s. NCCL- Jafrabad @ 8.50 per metric ton as compensation and M/s. NCCL. Jafarabad has undertaken a work of dredging, maintenance and repairing of jetty for which the noticee has not paid an amount of Rs. 1,96,00,000/- In the said notification, under section D, condition No. 17 reads that, "17. The concession of Rx 8.50 per tone on the present wharfage rate of Cement Clinker Rx 45/- per MT to NCCL or its successor shall be extended all the set-off against the compensation amount of Rs. 1.96 crore un dredging and jerry maintenance & repairs incurred by the party is adjusted Thereafter, full wharfage rate as applicable on GMB jetty shall be levied." From the above, it was seen that the normal rate of wharfage is Rs.45% per MT and in the subject matter, the noticee has not charged normal rate of wharfage on account of concession of Rs.8,50 per tone to compensate an amount of Rs. 1.96 crores that has already been received by the noticee in terms of work ie. (dredging, maintenance and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt charged under the provisions of section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The Superintendent, Service Tax Rural Range, Bhavnagar, vide his letters F. No. BVN/STAX/RRL/A/11/08-09 dated 05-02-09, 20-02-09, 18-03-09, 09-04-09 & 06-05-09 had requested the noticee to submit the bifurcated value of Rs. 1.96 crores for the period 21-02-05 to 17-04-06 & from 18-04-06 to 20-02-07. It was also informed that if they fail to furnish the bifurcated value of Rs. 1.96 crores, the Service Tax will be calculated @ 12% for whole amount involved in the Audit para. The Noticee, vide their letter No. GMB/POJ/ST/168 dated 11 - 6 - 2009 had submitted the details of differential amount of Rs. 1,27,77,557/- only (instead of Rs. 1.96 crores as found by the audit party). The Noticee has submitted the details for the period from Feb.-05 to 17-04-06 and from 18-04-06 to 20-02-07. 2.1. The Superintendent, Service Tax Rural Range, Bhavnagar, vide his letters F.No. BVN/STAX/RRL/A/11/08-09 dated 12-08-09, 17-08-09, 31-08-09, 04-09-09 & 10-09-09 had again requested the noticee to submit the details of Rs. 1.96 crores for the period from Feb.-05 10 17-04-06 and from 18-04-06 to 20-02-07. But the said noticee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from them under the provision of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended, by revoking extended period of five year. All these acts of contravention of the provisions of Section 67,688,70 of the Finance Act 1994 these added, read with Rules 6 and 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 appeared to be punishable under the provisions of Section 76, 77, 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended from time to time. 3. Apart from the above, it also appeared to the department that the Noticee have willfully suppressed facts, nature and value of services provided by them with the an intention to evade the payment of Service Tax under the category of Port Service, rendering themselves liable for penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3.1. Therefore, a notice was issued proposing that (i) The amount of rebate /concession granted by the Noticee in the wharfage charges to M/s. NCCL Jafrabad allowed as adjustment should not be included in the value of taxable service Services and why the differential amount of taxable value of Rs.1,96,00,000/- should not be considered as taxable value under Section 67 read with Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, invoking the larger ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lants' own case and affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court Gujarat Maritime Board 2015 (38) STR 776 (Tri.- Ahmd) CCE Bhavnagar Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 2015 (39) STR 529 (SC) • No objection was raised during previous audits. Department was fully aware of the activities of the Appellants. Suppression cannot be invoked. Pragathi Concrete Products 2017 (50) STR 92 (SC) And against this, the learned AR while vehemently defending the order of lower authorities seeks to place reliance on 2019 (25) GSTL 246 (Tri. Delhi) in the matter of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-New Delhi to additionally justify and invocation of extended period and penalty. 5. Considered, in the instant case it appears the appellant was collecting wharfage charges of Rs. 45 per metric ton for movement of concrete and cement produced by M/s. NCCL through the Jetty in question. Same was run by the appellant. The appellant had authorized M/s. NCCL to carry out the work of dredging, maintenance and repairing of the Jetty for which their incurred expense of Rs. 1.96 crores. To compensate appellant, had allowed a concession of Rs. 8.50 per metric ton ....