AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1831
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned order adjudicates three SOD / SCNs No.271/2013 dated 03.10.2013, 231/2014 dated 15.09.2014 and 60/2015 dated 31.08.2015, covering the period October 2011 to September 2014, each of which indicate that they are in continuation of the earlier proceedings. Further, the earliest of the SODs in the present proceedings, i.e. SOD No.271/2013, dated 03.10.2013 indicates the previous period proceedings initiated vide three separate SCNs covering the period from September 2007 to August 2010 had been adjudicated by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai, vide OIO no.729, 2013, dated 31.01.2013. The SOD No.271/2013 also indicates that the facts and allegations made in the previous notice are part of the Statement of Demand. The Department had issued these notices being of the view that the activity of lease / hire of the vessels / equipment from various companies abroad is classifiable under supply of tangible goods service and that the Appellant was liable to pay service tax on reverse charge basis in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act 1994. The impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority after due process of law has been appealed before this Forum in the present appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsistently adopting the said view as can be seen from the decision in Tel Exports V. LTU Chennai, Service Tax Appeal No.41380 of 2015, dated 16.04.2025, Taneja Aerospace and Aviation Ltd. V. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai (2024) 17 Centax 335 (Tri.-Mad.), Caravel Logistics Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (2024) 21 Centax 144 (Tri.-Mad.) and Universal Dredging & Reclamation Corporation Ltd. V. Commr. of CGST and C.Ex. Madurai, 2021 (44) GSTL 401 (Tri.-Mad). Reliance was also place on the decisions in Blue Dart Aviation Ltd. V. CST & Final Order No.4227842285/2018 dated 10.07.2018. He prays that the appeal may be allowed. 5. Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Ld. Authorised Representative reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority as stated in the impugned order. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the materials on record. 7. We find that the present proceedings are with respect to subsequent SODs issued and place reliance on the facts and allegations made in the previous notices. We find that this Tribunal in the appellant's own case, in International Seaport Dredging Ltd. V. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai, 2018 (12) GSTL 185 (Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pply fuel and repair the vessels whenever required during the Charter Period and they shall pay all charges and expenses of every account and nature whatsoever incidental to their usage and operation of the vessel under this charter, including foreign general municipality and/or taxes. It is the responsibility of the charterer to comply with all the regulations regarding officers and crew of the vessel as per the applicable law. 11. Clause 10(a) stipulates payment terms for charter. The appellants are to pay an agreed lump sum amount per calendar month till the vessel is redelivered by them to the owners. Clause 12(a) stipulates that the vessel shall be kept by the charterers at their expense against marine, war and protection and indemnity risks in such form as the owner shall in writing approve. Clause 14 talks about redelivery of the chartered vessel. On expiry of charter period, charterer shall redeliver the vessel at safe and ice-free port or place as per the approval. 12. On careful consideration of the terms of the above Bareboat Charter, we are of the considered view that in the present case, vessels/dredgers were transferred to the appellant with right of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstitute the transactions as transfer of right to use goods. Therefore, the transactions fall within the exclusionary clause of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Act, consequently outside the purview of taxable service. The Tribunal extensively referred to the following decisions :- a. Avatar Singh and Others - (2002) 7 SCC 419, b. H.L.S. Asia Ltd. - (2003) 132 STC 217 (Guwahati), c. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. - 2006-TIOL-15-SC-CT-LB = 2006 (2) S.T.R. 161 (S.C.), d. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer - (1990) 77 STC 182 AP, e. G.S. Lamba & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh - 2012-TIOL-49-HCAP = 2015 (324) E.L.T. 316 (A.P.). f. Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. v. State of Karnataka - (2004) 136 STC 519 (Kar.). 16. We note that the analysis of the Tribunal in the above said decisions in Petronet LNG (supra) is focussed on the terms "transferring right of possession and effective control". In the said case, the Revenue submitted that the Manager, Master and crew of the bunkers are employees of the owner and were paid overtime etc. by the owner. The owner is required to maintain the tanker for wear and tear an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g without consent of the owner, area of operation of the vessel as stipulated by the owner is considered as restrictions which will make the arrangement as not amounting to transferring right of possession and effective control to the appellant. We are not in agreement with such inference. As noted already, there is no sale of vessel in the present transaction. The owner of the vessel continues to be the owner. It is necessary and legally permissible for the owner to put certain restrictions and obligations on the part of the appellant who uses the supplied vessel for the intended purposes. This by itself will not make the exclusion clause for tax inapplicable. 20. Examining the scope of transfer of right to use, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. (supra) held that when the vessel during the charter period was for all purposes at the disposal of the charterer and under their control in every respect including maintenance, spare parts, efficient operation, fulfilment of legal clarification etc., the same should be considered as transfer of right to use. 21. The Tribunal in Reliance Industries Ltd. - 2016 (45) STR 341 (Tri.- Mum.....