2017 (11) TMI 1107 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - activities of unitisation, strapping and packeting undertaken in terms of contract with M/s BSP, Bhilai, in the client s premises - whether classified under Cargo Handling Services or otherwise? - Held that - the very same issue in the assessee-Appellants‟ own case was subject matter of the decision before the Apex Court Signode India Limited Versus Commr. of Cen. Excise & Customs-II 2017 (3) TMI 934 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that All activity undertaken by the appellant, though related to packing activity, is at a stage when the goods are yet to clear the factory gate as manufactured goods for onward transportation. Prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act of 2005 with effect from 16.06.2005, the appellant would not be liable to pay service tax on the service rendered by it in terms of Section 65(23) read with Section 105(zr) of the Act. The demand of Service Tax on the assessee-Appellants for the relevant period will not arise - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service tax liability under "Cargo Handling Services" for the period August 2002 to August 2004.
2. Concession of re-quantification of tax liability on cum-tax value.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 18.01.2006, confirming Service Tax liability under "Cargo Handling Services" for the period August 2002 to August 2004. The assessee-Appellants were engaged in unitisation, strapping, and packeting of finished goods. The Revenue contended that these activities fell under taxable "Cargo Handling Services." The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the tax liability but allowed re-quantification considering the gross receipt as cum-tax value. The assessee argued that their packing activities did not qualify as taxable under "Cargo Handling Services," citing a recent Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal analyzed the legislative intent, distinguishing between "cargo handling activity" and "packaging activity," and concluded that the demand for Service Tax was not applicable for the pre-amendment period before 16.06.2005. The Tribunal referred to a circular clarifying services liable to tax under "cargo handling services" and highlighted that the appellant's activities were not performed as a cargo handling agency. Based on the Supreme Court's directive and the legal interpretation, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee-Appellants, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

2. The second issue involved the concession of re-quantification of tax liability on cum-tax value. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed this concession, which was challenged by the Revenue in their appeal. However, based on the legal analysis and the Supreme Court's decision, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for Service Tax on the assessee-Appellants for the relevant period did not stand. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee-Appellants were allowed, while the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the distinction between cargo handling and packaging activities and the inapplicability of Service Tax in the given scenario.