Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shipping Corporation Of India vs Commissioner Ce & St(Ltu) Mumbai on 22 April, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I
Service Tax Appeal No. 87546 of 2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.51/COMMR.(RS)/LTU-M/S.T./2016 dated
25.08.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Large
Taxpayer Unit (LTU), Mumbai)
The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. .... Appellants
Shipping House,
245, Madame Cama Road,
Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400 021.
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax .... Respondent
Large Taxpayer Unit (LTU)
29th Floor, World Trade Centre,
Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai - 400 005.
Appearance:
Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri S.K. Yadav, Authorised Representative for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NO. A/85735/2025
Date of Hearing: 24.10.2024
Date of Decision: 22.04.2025
Per: M.M. PARTHIBAN
This appeal has been filed by M/s The Shipping Corporation of India
Limited (SCI), Shipping House, 245, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400 021 (herein after, referred to as 'the appellants', for short),
assailing Order-in-Original No. 51/COMMR.(RS)/LTU-M/S.T./2016 dated
25.08.2016 (herein after, referred to as 'the impugned order') passed by
the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit
(LTU), Mumbai.
2.1 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants herein is,
engaged in business of operation and maintenance of ships, offering liner
2
ST/87546/2016
and passenger services, bulk carriers and tanker services, offshore services
and related services in connection with supply and management of
ships/vessels. Some of the services provided by the appellants included
Supply of Tangible Goods for Use (STGU) service, ship management
service, business auxiliary service, business support service, management
consultancy service, maintenance or repair service, commercial training
and coaching, Insurance auxiliary service, Banking and Financial Services
etc. For the purpose of payment of service tax on taxable services and for
compliance with Service tax statute, the appellants were registered with
jurisdictional service tax authorities and are holding Centralised service tax
registration No. AAACT1524FST001. Further, they are also registered with
LTU Mumbai bearing registration No. LTU/MUM/1113 and are filing the
periodic ST-3 returns with the jurisdictional service tax authorities under
the Finance Act, 1944.
2.2 During the course of EA-2000 audit conducted on the records of the
appellants, the department had objected to the non-payment of service tax
on bunker/fuel charges and water charges recovered by the appellants in
the course of providing charter hiring of vessels to their customers. Hence,
Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 16.06.2015 was issued for demanding
service tax amounting to Rs.15,64,35,709/- along with interest for the
period October, 2009 to September, 2014 under Section 73(1), 75 of the
Finance Act, 1994 besides imposition of penalty under Sections 76, 77, 78
ibid. The said SCN dated 16.06.2015 was adjudicated on the basis of
appellant's reply letter dated 16.07.2015 to the SCN and the submissions
made during the personal hearing on 26.07.2016, by the learned
Commissioner in confirmation of all the proposals initiated in the SCN.
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 25.08.2016, the appellant
has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
3.1 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the
appellants are providing the shipping services to their customers who
charter the ships/vessels under two types of agreement viz., voyage
charter and time charter. In voyage charter, the customers of the appellants
hire a vessel and its crew for a voyage between load port and discharge
port; with the charterer paying the appellants-owner of the ship fixed lump
sum price for the transportation of cargo from one port to another. This
single price is inclusive of all costs i.e., port costs, fuel costs and crew costs
and the appellants have discharged the applicable service tax on the
lumpsum price received from the appellants. Further, on time charter, the
3
ST/87546/2016
customers of the appellants hire a vessel for a specific period of time, where
the appellants-owner manages the vessel, and the charterer customer
selects the ports and directs the vessel where to go. The customer hiring
on time charter basis pays for all fuel the vessel consumes, port charges,
commissions and a daily hire to the appellants-owner of the vessel. In such
time charter party arrangement, where the vessel is at the disposal of the
customer-charterer, the appellants have discharged the service tax liability
on the supply of services, excluding the value of bunker from the value of
service, as this involved supply of goods. Learned Advocate further
submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered
into between the appellants and voyage/time charterers, provide for a
specific clause for recovery of the cost of fuel/bunker and water charges
from the charterer customers, for the bunker at delivery and re-delivery. It
is claimed by the learned Advocate that the appellants purchase the
fuel/bunker on payment of VAT while supplying the same to their customers
and there is no tax on water; therefore, he submitted that the appellants
were of the bonafide belief that no service would be leviable of supply of
such bunkers/fuel and water.
3.2 Learned Advocate relied upon the clarification issued by the CBEC in
Circular No.65/14/2003-S.T. dated 05.11.2003, to support their stand that
the fuel/bunker and water charges as per agreement for delivery of the
vessel cannot form part of the taxable value of services in terms of Section
67 of the Finance Act, 1994, and therefore there is no scope for levy of
service tax thereon. Further, he contended that for the period w.e.f.
01.07.2012, since the activity relating to supply/sale of goods has been
kept out of the purview of service tax in terms Section 66B(44)(a)(i) ibid,
no service tax is leviable on such supply of bunker fuel/water. In support
thereof, he quoted the explanation provided in paragraph 2.6.4 of the
Education guide issued by CBIC for taxation of services.
3.3 In support of their stand, learned Advocate had relied upon following
decisions of the Tribunal in the respective cases mentioned below:
(i) Express Engineers & Spares Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST,
Ghaziabad - 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 112 (Tri. - All.)
(ii) International Seaport Dredging Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service
Tax, Chennai - 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 185 (Tri. - Chennai)
(iii) Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T.,
Surat - 2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 62 (Tri. - Ahmd.)
4
ST/87546/2016
In view of the orders passed by the Tribunal, the learned Advocate
pleaded that the allegations levelled against by the Department that the
appellants have not discharged service tax on bunker/fuel and water
charges is not maintainable. Therefore, he prayed that their appeal be
allowed.
4. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) appearing for the
department, on the other hand, reiterated the findings in the impugned
order and claimed that the appellants having collected the bunker/fuel
charges and water charges, this should be considered as integral part of
the consideration for the services of supply of vessels and service tax is
liable to be paid. In this regard, he relied upon the following orders passed
by the Tribunal:
(i) Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Singapore Airlines Ltd. - 2012
(25) S.T.R. 214 (Tri. - Del.)
(ii) United Shippers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2015
(38) S.T.R. 737 (Tri. - Mumbai)
(iii) Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union
of India - 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.)
Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is sustainable, and
appeal filed by the appellants cannot be entertained.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We have also
considered the additional written submissions given in the form of paper
book by both sides.
6. The issue for consideration in the present case is to examine, whether
or not, the disputed value of services on which the adjudged service tax
demands have been confirmed, is sustainable for levy of service tax under
the Finance Act, 1994 and the rules made thereunder. The dispute is that
the value of banker/fuel and water delivered, while supplying the vessel by
the appellants to their charterers, have not been included in determining
the assessable value for discharging service tax under 'Supply of Tangible
Goods for Use (STGU)' service and the disputed period covered in the SCN
is from October, 2009 to September, 2014.
7. The relevant statutory provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the
rules made there under are extracted and given below:
5
ST/87546/2016
"Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994
Definitions.
Section 65. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(105) "taxable service" means any service provided or to be provided,--
(zzzzj) to any person, by any other person in relation to supply of tangible
goods including machinery, equipment and appliances for use, without
transferring right of possession and effective control of such machinery,
equipment and appliances;
Interpretations.
Section 65B. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(44) "service" means any activity carried out by a person for another for
consideration, and includes a declared service, but shall not include--
(a) an activity which constitutes merely, --
(i) a transfer of title in goods or immovable property, by way of sale, gift
or in any other manner; or
(ii) such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods which is deemed to be
a sale within the meaning of clause (29A) of article 366 of the
Constitution; or
(iii) a transaction in money or actionable claim;
(b) a provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course
of or in relation to his employment;
(c) fees taken in any Court or tribunal established under any law for the
time being in force
.....
Charge of service tax.
Section 66. 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)...(zzzzt)....and (zzzzw) of clause (105) of section 65 and collected in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply with effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification, appoint.
Charge of service tax on and after Finance Act, 2012. Section 66B. There shall be levied a tax (hereinafter referred to as the service tax) at the rate of 1twelve per cent on the value of all services, other than those services specified in the negative list, provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another and collected in such manner as may be prescribed.2
Explanation :--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the references to the provisions of section 66 in Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) or any other Act, for the purpose of levy and collection of service tax, shall be construed as references to the provisions of section 66B."
Valuation of taxable services for charging service tax. Section 67. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, where service tax is chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value, then such value shall,--
(i) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration in money, be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him;1
Ten percent during FYs 2009-10, 20101-11 and 2011-12 and fourteen percent w.e.f. 01.06.2015.
2The above explana on was omi ed by the Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 10-5-2013.
6ST/87546/2016 ...
(c) "gross amount charged" includes payment by cheque, credit card, deduction from account and any form of payment by issue of credit notes or debit notes and book adjustment, and any amount credited or debited, as the case may be, to any account, whether called "Suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of a person liable to pay service tax, where the transaction of taxable service is with any associated enterprise..."
"SERVICE TAX (DETERMINATION OF VALUE) RULES, 2006 NOTIFICATION NO. 12/2006-SERVICE TAX, DATED 19-4-2006 Inclusion in or exclusion from value of certain expenditure or costs. Rule 5. (1) Where any expenditure or costs are incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable service, all such expenditure or costs shall be treated as consideration for the taxable service provided or to be provided and shall be included in the value for the purpose of charging service tax on the said service.3
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the value of the telecommunication service shall be the gross amount paid by the person to whom telecommunication service is actually provided...."
8.1 From plain reading of the above legal provisions, it transpires that service tax is liable to be paid in respect of taxable services provided by one person i.e., service provider to the other person i.e., service receiver. It is not in dispute that the appellants-vessel owner is the service provider and their customer-charterers are the service receiver, in respect of the taxable service. Further, it also transpires that for the period relating to the pre-negative list regime i.e., prior to 1-7-2012, the taxability of service tax was determined in terms of coverage of an activity under the service tax net by defining taxable services under section 65(105) ibid, which enumerated each of the specified services. For the period post-negative list regime, the category of services hitherto defined under the erstwhile regime were merged under a common phrase i.e., 'service' as defined under section 65B(44) ibid, which was brought into effect from 1-7-2012. The relevant entry of the specific taxable service in the present case is 65(105)(zzzzj) ibid. Subsequent to introduction of Negative list regime from 01.07.2022, the services that are subject to levy of service tax have been explained in Section 66B ibid.
8.2. In terms of Section 66/66B ibid, since the service tax is liable to be paid at the rate of 12% of the value of taxable services, recourse have to be taken to the provision of Section 67 ibid for determining the value of taxable services. As per the said legal provision, the value of services is 3 Inserted by the Service Tax (Determina on of Value) (Amendment) Rules, 2011, w.e.f. 1-3-2011.
7ST/87546/2016 the 'gross amount' charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him; and the phrase 'gross amount' includes payment by cheque, credit card, deduction from account and any form of payment by issue of credit notes or debit notes etc. Hence, the value of the taxable service shall only be in relation to the services so provided, which are under the subject of levy of service tax, and not all consideration which do not have any relation to the scope of services that are subject to levy of service tax.
8.3 In order to arrive at a conclusion whether the activities undertaken by the appellants in providing the bunker/fuel and water, is a part of the taxable service under the category 'Supply of Tangible Goods for Use' (STGU), we would like to examine the relevant agreement entered in this regard by the appellants with their Charterer-customer. The extract of the relevant clause in the representative agreement entered into by the appellants with M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited dated 08.11.2012 is extracted and given below:
"4. Period of Hire and Trading Limits Owners agree to let and Charterers agree to hire the vessel for a period of 1 YEAR + 3 MONTHS CHARTER OPTION + 3 MONTHS CHARTER OPTION (+/- 15 DAYS IN THE LAST PERIOD OF CHARTER OPTION) from the date the vessel is delivered to charterers as specified in the notice of delivery, with provision of extension as mentioned in Clause 55, for the purpose of carrying all lawful merchandise (subject always to Clause 29) including in particular, clean petroleum products....
6. Owners to provide Owners undertake to provide and to pay for all provisions, wages, and shipping and discharging fees and all other expenses of the master, officers and crew; also, except as provided in Clauses 4 and 35 thereof, for all insurance on the vessel, for all deck, cabin and engine-room stores, and for water; for all dry docking, overhaul, maintenance and repairs to the vessel; and for all fumigation expenses and de-rat certificates......
7. Charterers to provide Charterers shall provide and pay for all fuel and water for boilers, hire, towage and pilotage and shall pay agency fees, port charges, commissions, expenses of loading and unloading cargoes, canal dues and all charges other than those payable by Owners in accordance with Clause 6 thereof.
8. Rate of Hire 8.1 Subject as herein provided, Charterers shall pay for the use and hire of the vessel at the all-inclusive rate of the Rs. USD 12,600/-Per Day Pro Rata (excluding Service Tax/Education Cess on service tax, if any)...8
ST/87546/2016
16. Bunkers at delivery and redelivery In case of vessels which are currently on charter with the Oil Industry, Charterers shall accept and pay for all bunkers on board at the time of delivery as per the redelivery prices charged by the previous Charterer/ provided owners have not supplied any fresh bunkers after re-delivery by previous charterer and before delivery to new charterer. Owners to provide the proof of such recoveries by the previous Charterer. In all other cases, Charterers shall accept and pay as per the last bunker procurement price by the owners (owners to submit relevant invoice / proof of payment) or at the ruling coastal price at the port of delivery, whichever is lower, for all bunkers on board at the time of delivery.
Owners shall on redelivery (whether it occurs at the end of the charter period or on the earlier termination of this charter) accept and pay for all bunkers remaining on board, at the then current ruling coastal prices at the port of redelivery, as the case may be. If for the port of delivery / re- delivery the coastal rates are not available, in such cases the rates applicable for the nearest port at the time of delivery / redelivery shall be considered. In case of vessel delivery/redelivery at RIL, Sikka/EOL, Jamnagar then the bunker rates declared for Kandla Port shall be applicable for calculating the coastal prices for bunkers at the time of delivery/redelivery.
During the charter period after the initial delivery of the vessel, in case the vessel is being delivered to charterers after Dry Docking, then due weightage shall be given to the quantity and value of Bunkers remaining on board at time of delivery for which the charterer's have deducted the cost from the owners based on the port of re-delivery to owners for Dry Docking:
Owners shall submit documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the Charterers and in case the same is not accepted by the Charterers then Charterers shall accept and pay as per the last bunker procurement price by the owners (owners to submit relevant invoice / proof of payment) or at the ruling coastal price at the port of delivery, whichever is lower, for all bunkers on board at the time of delivery.
I) THE VESSEL WILL BE DELIVERED TO CHARTERERS AFTER DELIVERY BUNKER SURVEY AND COASTAL CONVERSION (IF REQUIRED) AT ONE SP/LPO/SBM EAST / WEST COAST OF INDIA AT CHARTER OPTION II) THE VESSEL WILL BE RE-DELIVERED TO OWNERS AT ONE SP/LPO/SBM WCI / ECI OR A FOREIGN PORT CHOPTION UPON DISCONNECTION OF HOSES AFTER COMPLETION OF DISCHARGE AT THE RE-DELIVERY PORT AFTER RE-DELIVERY BUNKER SURVEY III) COST AND TIME OF DELIVERY BUNKER SURVEY WILL BE ON OWNERS' ACCOUNT AND COST AND TIME OF RE-DELIVERY BUNKER SURVEY WILL BE ON CHARTERERS' ACCOUNT IV) THE COST OF BUNKERS AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY WILL BE REIMBURSED TO THE OWNERS AT CURRENT INDIAN COASTAL DUTY PAID BUNKER PRICES PREVAILING AT THE DELIVERY PORT V) CHARTERERS WILL RECOVER THE COST OF ESTIMATED REDELIVERY BUNKERS AND THE RECOVERY SHALL BE MADE BY CHARTERERS AT CURRENT INDIAN COASTAL DUTY PAID BUNKER PRICES PREVAILING AT THE RE-DELIVERY PORT. IF RE-DELIVERY AT A FOREIGN PORT, THE 9 ST/87546/2016 BUNKER PRICES PREVAILING AT THE LAST PORT CF CARGO OPERATION IN INDIA WILL BE CONSIDERED.
VI) FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR THE ACTUAL RE-DELIVERY BUNKER QUANTITIES (EITHER REFUND TO THE OWNERS FOR THE EXCESS RECOVERY OR PAYMENT TO THE CHARTERERS FOR THE UNDER RECOVERY) WILL BE DONE ALONGWITH LAST PERFORMANCE SETTLEMENT."
On careful reading of the above clauses in the agreement entered into by the appellants, it clearly states that the services provided are for hiring of the vessel for carrying petroleum products by the vessel, and such services shall start from the time of delivery of the vessel. It is also brought out clearly in the above agreement that the charterer pays for the fuel, water during the period of hiring of the vessel and the charges paid for the services of hiring of vessel include these. Since the vessel has to be moved to the place of delivery as agreed between the parties, after its last charter period is completed, the cost of fuel/bunker contained therein and water during the period of making the vessel ready for delivery for starting of service is required to be incurred by the appellants, which is separately reimbursed by charterers at actuals. It is clearly brought out that such activity of delivering the vessel is not part of the services, and therefore the fuel/bunker and water charges, incurred by the appellants, prior to the delivery of the vessel, in no case would become part of the services agreed upon between the parties. Therefore, in our considered view, the value of the bunker/fuel and water, which do not form part of the taxable services cannot be added to the taxable value of the services.
9. We find that the issue involved in this appeal was decided in an identical facts of the case by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Express Engineers & Spares Private Limited (supra) by holding that supply of goods to customers would not amount to STGU for the period prior to 30.06.2012, or a declared service from 01.07.2012 to attract levy of service tax. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are extracted and given below:
"13. The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the supply of diesel generator sets to customers would amount to STGU service. The demand has been confirmed under the category of STGU service for the period 1-4-2011 to 30-6-2012 under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act and as a declared service involving "transfer of goods by way of hiring, leasing, licensing, or in any such manner without transfer of right to use such goods" under Section 66E(f) of the Finance Act for the period 1-7-2012 to 31-3-2015. The impugned order has held that the diesel generator sets provided by the appellant to its customers would amount to supply of STGU/transfer of goods for hire service, as 10 ST/87546/2016 the effective control over the diesel generator sets remained with the appellant.
36. The transportation and installation of diesel generator sets at the site of the customers cannot lead to a conclusion that the appellant was rendering STGU service. The Agreement itself provides that the appellant would be responsible for providing diesel generator sets to the customers. It was, therefore, imperative for the appellant to ensure that the diesel generator sets were transported and installed at the site of the customer.
37. Though, the appellant may be providing operators to the customer, but these operators were working entirely under the direction and control of the customers and the appellant had no control over them. Thus, so long as the effective control over the diesel generator sets remained with the customers, the mere providing of operators who were also under the direction and control of the customers, would not mean that the transaction was not that of sale. This view finds support from the judgments of the Gauhati High Court in Dipak Nath and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G.S. Lamba.
38. The finding in the impugned order that since the appellant was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the diesel generator sets, the appellant has retained effective control, cannot also be sustained because once the control and possession of the diesel generator sets was transferred to the customers, mere maintenance or repair work will not change the nature of the transaction. This is clear from the decisions of the Gauhati High Court in Dipak Nath and of the Tribunal in Petronet LNG Ltd.
39. What also needs to be noticed is that payment of VAT is also a factor which needs to be taken into consideration while determining whether the transaction is that of sale. The clarification issued by the Department in TRU dated 29-2-2008 supports this view. The relevant portion of the Circular is reproduced below :
"Payment of VAT on supply of goods is also a factor to determine whether the transaction is that of sale. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the clarification issued by the Department on February 29, 2008, wherein the taxable category of STGU was clarified and its distinction with deemed sale under sales tax was brought out. The relevant portion of the said clarification is reproduced below :-
4.4 Supply of Tangible Goods for use :
4.4.1 Transfer of the right to use any goods is leviable to sales tax/VAT as deemed sale of goods [Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India]. Transfer of right to use involves transfer of both possession and control of the goods.
4.4.2 Excavators, wheel loaders, dump trucks, crawler carriers, companion equipment, cranes etc. offshore construction vessels & barges, geo-technical vessels, tug and barge flotillas, rigs and high value machineries are supplied for use, with no legal right of possession and effective control. Transaction of allowing another person to use the goods, without giving legal right of possession and effective control, not being treated as sale of goods, is treated as service.
4.4.3 Proposal is to levy service tax on such services provided in relation to supply of tangible goods, including machinery, equipment and appliance, for use, with legal right of possession or effective control. Supply of tangible goods 11 ST/87546/2016 for use is leviable to VAT/Sales tax as deemed sale of goods, is not covered under the scope of the proposed service. Whether a transaction involves transfer of possession and control is a question of facts and is to be decided based on the terms of the contract and other material facts. This could be ascertainable from the fact whether VAT is payable or paid."
(Emphasis supplied)
41. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, it is more than apparent that the supply of diesel generator sets to the customers would not amount to STGU service for the period from 1-4-2011 to 30-6-2012, or a declared service from 1-7-2012 to 2014-15. The orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, cannot be sustained."
10. Further, we also find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in another case of Kiran Gems Private Limited (supra), have by relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ICC Reality (India) Private Limited, have held that electricity charges reimbursed to the service provider by the service recipient is not includable in the gross of value of taxable service.
11. Furthermore, we find that the Tribunal in the case of International Seaport Dredging Limited (supra) have held that the owner of the vessel had put in certain restrictions and obligations on his part and the charterer who uses the vessel for the intended purposes, and these by itself will not make the exclusion clause for service tax inapplicable.
12. It is not in dispute that the appellants have paid VAT on the bunker/fuel and there is no VAT on water. As these goods are supplied during the process of delivery of the vessel to the charterers, distinct from the fuel and water supplied during the charter period, such supply of the goods for enabling the delivery of the vessel cannot be brought under the purview of the service contract entered into between the appellants and their customers-charterers. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, these cannot be brought under the scope of the supply of STGU services by the appellants.
13. We find that the case laws cited by the learned AR is not relevant, as in the case of United Shippers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II - 2015 (37) S.T.R. 1043 (Tri. - Mumbai), the decision of the Tribunal in dropping the adjudged demands of service tax including penalty, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner Vs. United Shippers Ltd. - 2015 (39) S.T.R. J369 (S.C.) by dismissing Civil Appeal Diary No. 15918 of 2015 filed by the department.
12ST/87546/2016
14. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the issues under dispute having been already decided by the various decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and having been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in one of the above case, we cannot take a different stand from the settled position of law. Further, on the basis of the foregoing discussions and analysis of legal provisions and facts of the case in paragraphs 8.1 to 8.3, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 25.08.2016 does not stand the scrutiny of law and therefore the same is not legally sustainable.
15. In the result, the impugned order dated 25.08.2016 is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellants.
(Order pronounced in open court on 22.04.2025) (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (M.M. PARTHIBAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sinha