2015 (10) TMI 781 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Cargo handling service - Loading unloading and stacking of sugar bags in godowns within the factory premises - Held that - issue is indeed squarely covered in favour of the respondent by the judgement in the cases of Purshottam Lal (2014 (7) TMI 975 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) and Gaytri Construction Co. (2011 (9) TMI 481 - CESTAT, New Delhi) wherein it has been held that loading, unloading, lifting and stacking of sugar bags within the factory premises is not covered under cargo handling service. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-appeal confirming service tax demand under cargo handling service.
2. Interpretation of activities covered under cargo handling service as per Section 65(25) of Finance Act, 1994.
3. Application of precedent judgments in similar cases to determine liability for service tax.

Issue 1: Appeal against order-in-appeal confirming service tax demand under cargo handling service.
The Revenue appealed against the order-in-appeal dated 31.8.2009, which had set aside the order-in-original dated 31.3.2008 confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 82,746 under cargo handling service. The contention was that activities like loading, unloading, and stacking of sugar bags in godowns within the factory premises are liable to service tax under cargo handling service.

Issue 2: Interpretation of activities covered under cargo handling service as per Section 65(25) of Finance Act, 1994.
The Revenue argued that the activities in question fall under cargo handling service, as defined in Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994, which includes loading, unloading, packing, or unpacking of cargo. It was emphasized that this definition encompasses cargo handling services provided for both special containers and non-container freight.

Issue 3: Application of precedent judgments in similar cases to determine liability for service tax.
The respondent relied on precedent judgments, specifically Purshottam Lal Vs. CCE, Jallandhar 2015 (38) STR 161 (Tri.-Del.) and Gaytri Construction Co. Vs. CCE - 2012 (25) STR 259 (Tri.), to support their position. These judgments established that activities like loading, unloading, lifting, and stacking of sugar bags within factory premises do not fall under cargo handling service, as contended by the Revenue.

In analyzing the case, the Tribunal found that the issue was indeed covered in favor of the respondent by the judgments in Purshottam Lal and Gaytri Construction Co. The Tribunal concurred with the precedent that loading, unloading, and stacking of sugar bags within factory premises do not qualify as cargo handling service. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the established precedents and lack of merit in the Revenue's arguments.