Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Mormugao Port Trust vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 9 June, 2016

The Commissioner Of Central Excise - ... vs M/S.La Opla Rg Ltd on 15 November, 2018

9. It is further seen that the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal had occasion to adjudicate the identical dispute in respect of Chennai Port Trust with regard to the Terminal Charges received by them from Southern Railways. This decision is reported as Chennai Port Trust vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2017 (5) GSTL 394 (Tri.-Chennai)]. The observations of the Tribunal are reproduced below:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Traffic Manager Mumbai Port Trust vs Commr.Service Tax- I Mumbai on 23 July, 2020

11. Learned Authorised Representative drew our attention to the several opportunities afforded to the appellant in adjudication proceedings and the lack thereof in participation which, according to her, warranted discarding of the plea that principles of natural justice had not been complied with. Since that aspect has not been seriously pressed on behalf the appellants, we are in agreement. On behalf the respondent, it is submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in re Homa Engineering Works does not advance the case of the appellant because it was concerned with the chargeability to tax prior to 2010 and in relation to repairs effected by a private party and not by the port. It is a further contention that the decision of the Tribunal in Kandla Port Trust v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot [2019 (24) GSTL 422 (Tri-Ahmd)] has clearly held that any fees charged in relation to, inter alia, goods are chargeable to tax for being within the definition of 'port services.'
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Principal Commissioner, Service ... vs Wave Infratech Pvt Ltd on 19 December, 2022

22. A revenue sharing arrangement would, therefore, not necessarily imply provision of services, unless the service provider and service recipient relationship is established. This is what was observed by the Tribunal in Mormugao Port Trust vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Goa- (Vice-Versa)8, M/s. Old World Hospitality Limited vs. CST, New Delhi9 and Delhi International Airport P. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors10. In the present case, there is no service provider or service recipient relationship. The contention advanced by the learned authorised representative for the department cannot be accepted.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - D Gupta - Full Document

Souvenir Developers India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 17 May, 2022

6. No. 24/2009-ST dated 27th July 2009 ST/86358/2015 4 to demonstrate that reference to 'agency' and 'commission' therein sufficed to establish that the appellant was a 'commission agency' within the scope of taxability as provider of 'business auxiliary service' in the scheme of section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994. The decisions of the Tribunal in Larsen and Toubro Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax 7 and in Kandla Port Trust v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot 8 were cited in support of the case of Revenue.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - D Gupta - Full Document

Principal Commissioner, Service ... vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on 24 February, 2023

8.4 The learned Counsel further relies on the ruling in the case of Marmugao Port Trust vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise 2017-48-STR-69, wherein revenue had alleged 12 ST/50500 & 51771/2016-DB that the amount towards royalty recovered on account of renting/leasing land and water front to Southwest Port Ltd., Marmugao, was liable to service tax. This Tribunal held that both parties had undertaken a co-venture and, therefore, there was no relationship of service provider and service receiver. Both acted in mutual benefit and did not render service to each other.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd vs Principal Commissioner, Service ... on 24 February, 2023

8.4 The learned Counsel further relies on the ruling in the case of Marmugao Port Trust vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise 2017-48-STR-69, wherein revenue had alleged 12 ST/50500 & 51771/2016-DB that the amount towards royalty recovered on account of renting/leasing land and water front to Southwest Port Ltd., Marmugao, was liable to service tax. This Tribunal held that both parties had undertaken a co-venture and, therefore, there was no relationship of service provider and service receiver. Both acted in mutual benefit and did not render service to each other.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax-Vii Mumbai on 17 July, 2023

16.....Wages of employees and costs of running the establishment,...., are necessary expenses for such sustenance....... Contribution to expenses cannot, by any stretch, be deemed to be consideration for any identified service rendered.' The principle thus espoused, and emphatically reiterated by the Tribunal in Mormugoa Port Trust v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2017 (48) STR 69 (Tri-Mum)] as '16... the two had come together with the common objective of earning revenue by jointly rendering port services at Jetty Nos. 5A and 6A...We are therefore of the view that the agreement between the Assessee and SWPL is joint-venture between the two, where the two co-venture are jointly controlling a common activity and sharing the revenue therefrom.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next