UNITED SHIPPERS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request of Counsel for both the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. This appeal has been filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act), challenging the order dated 4 September, 2013 (2014 (35) S.T.R. 341 (Tribunal)) of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). By the impugned order dated 4 September, 2013, the appellant was directed to pre-deposit Rs. 25 crores for the purposes of the appellant's appeal being entertained on merits against the orders dated 29 November, 2012 and 18 February, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise which confirmed the aggregate service tax demand of Rs. 58.53 crores along with interest thereon and an equivalent penalty.

(2.) The basic dispute that arises between the parties is whether Service Tax is chargeable under the head 'Cargo Handling Service' even in respect of consideration received for transportation of goods in barges from a mother-ship to the jetty known as barging and transport of goods from one minor port to another. It is the case of the Revenue that the transportation in barges is only a part of the service of Cargo Handling Service rendered by the appellant to its customers and, therefore, includible. On the other, the appellant contends that transportation services are independent of the 'Cargo Handling Service' and cannot be included under the head 'Cargo Handling Service' for discharge of service tax. According to the appellant, the demand, attributable to transport by barges is Rs. 51.13 crores and that to transport from one minor port to another is Rs. 7.40 crores.

(3.) The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 4 September, 2013, prima facie, came to the conclusion that the activity of stevedoring, unloading, transportation from the mother-ship to the jetty in barges and, thereafter, to the customers' destination are all the activities which form a composite service classifiable under the head of 'Cargo Handling Service' as defined under Section 65(23) of the Act. However, so far as the issue of transport of goods from one minor port to another minor port was concerned, the impugned order dated 4 September, 2013 prima facie concluded that the same cannot be classified under the head 'Cargo Handling Service'. The impugned order while directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 25 crores out of a total demand of Rs. 58.53 crores as service tax also records the fact that no financial hardship has been pleaded on behalf of the appellant.