2015 (8) TMI 1283 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of Service tax along with interest and penalties - Cargo Handling Service - Packing cement into bags and loading of the packed bags into wagons and trucks as well as stacking of packed bags on platform/godown whenever required and other miscellaneous works at packing plant area - Appellant contended that it only provided manpower to do certain assigned works and so fell under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Service and not under Cargo Handling Service . Held that - the service rendered is categorically covered under the scope of Cargo Handling Service . As the appellant made a reference to Board Circular No. FB/11/1/2012-TRU, dated 1-8-2002 to defend the proposition that the activity of loading and unloading by individuals with the help of hired labourers would not come under the purview Cargo Handling Service , the Board circulars do not have any binding effect on CESTAT. In the present case, the service was not rendered by an individual but by a proprietary concern and it has been held in the case of J.K. Transport v. CCE, Raipur-II 2006 (1) TMI 3 - CESTAT - New Delhi that a proprietary firm rendering service does not tantamount to rendition of service by an individual. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
Service Tax demand under "Cargo Handling Service" vs. "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Service"

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Revision confirming a Service Tax demand under "Cargo Handling Service." The appellant argued that they provided manpower for assigned works, falling under "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Service," not "Cargo Handling Service." The primary adjudicating authority's order detailed the nature of work done by the appellant, including packing cement into bags, loading them into wagons/trucks, and other related tasks. The agreement clearly indicated services falling within the scope of "Cargo Handling Service" as per Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant cited a CESTAT judgment in support of their argument, but the Tribunal found that the services provided indeed fell under "Cargo Handling Service" based on the agreement's terms and the nature of work performed.

The Tribunal examined the services rendered by the appellant, which involved various tasks related to handling cargo, including packing, loading, and stacking of cement bags. These activities clearly aligned with the definition of "Cargo Handling Service" as per the relevant legal provisions. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's services were not akin to mere transportation or individual labor services but encompassed activities integral to cargo handling. Despite references to previous judgments and circulars, the Tribunal emphasized that the specific nature of services provided by the appellant determined the applicability of "Cargo Handling Service," which was conclusively established based on the tasks outlined in the agreement.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Service Tax demand under "Cargo Handling Service." The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the services rendered by the appellant, which were found to unequivocally fall within the ambit of "Cargo Handling Service" as defined by the law. Despite the appellant's contentions and references to legal precedents, the Tribunal's scrutiny of the agreement and the nature of work performed led to the conclusion that the services provided were rightfully categorized under "Cargo Handling Service." Consequently, the impugned order confirming the Service Tax demand was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.