9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1455 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary Service - Held that - this issue had come up for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. vs CCE, Raipur, 2014 (1) TMI 1049 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that the said activity does not amount to manufacture and such order stands accepted by the Revenue, it has to be held that there was no production of goods. Cargo Handing Service - Held that - the same is squarely covered in favour of the assessee-Respondents by the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs Manoj Kumar, 2012 (9) TMI 941 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , where The sugar bags were not to be loaded or unloaded for any movement outside the factory on public roads, on any ships, aeroplane or trucks for onward movement to any destination. The activities will fall within the meaning of transportation of goods, and would certainly not be included in the definition of Cargo Handling Service which is the service exigible to Service tax. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Raipur. - Service Tax demand under "Business Auxiliary Service" and "Cargo Handing Service" for activities undertaken by the assessee-Respondents. - Interpretation of the terms "production of goods" and "Cargo Handing Service" in relation to the activities conducted by the assessee-Respondents. Analysis: 1. The Department filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Raipur. The dispute pertained to the period from 07th September, 2009 to 30th September, 2009. The Department raised a Service Tax demand under "Business Auxiliary Service" and "Cargo Handing Service" for various activities conducted by the assessee-Respondents. 2. The Department contended that the activities of the assessee-Respondents were taxable under "Business Auxiliary Service" and "Cargo Handing Service." However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand, stating that the activities were in the nature of processing of goods and not subject to taxation before 16.06.2015. The Department, being dissatisfied, filed the present appeal challenging this decision. 3. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides and reviewed the case records. The Tribunal noted a previous judgment in the case of Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. vs CCE, Raipur, where it was observed that the term "production of goods" should be interpreted in a manner that the activity results in the production of goods. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee-Respondents on this issue. 4. Regarding the issue of "Cargo Handing Service," the Tribunal referred to the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs Manoj Kumar, where it was clarified that activities within a factory premises, such as loading, unloading, packing, and shifting of goods, do not fall under the definition of "Cargo Handing Service." The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision based on this interpretation. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Department, citing that the impugned order was sustained along with the reasons provided therein. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court, bringing an end to the legal proceedings in this matter.
|
