2018 (11) TMI 88 - AT - Service Tax

Cargo Handling Service - period 1.10.2002 to 30.09.2007 - activity related to loading, collecting, unloading and stacking of waste paper and pulp - Held that - Hon ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of CCE, Ranchi vs. Modi Construction Company 2011 (4) TMI 598 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT have specifically held that the services of loading and unloading and stacking within the factory premises would not fall under the category of cargo handling service - demand set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Taxability of services rendered within factory premises under Cargo Handling Service category.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by Revenue against Orders-in-Appeal, challenging the holding that the respondents are not taxable under Cargo Handling Service for a specific period. The Revenue argued that the activities undertaken by the respondent fall under the definition of cargo handling service, emphasizing a circular by CBEC. The service provider was claimed to be responsible for various activities like loading and unloading, which constitute cargo handling. The Revenue cited relevant legal precedents to support their argument.

The respondent's counsel contended that the activities undertaken do not qualify as cargo handling service, citing legal decisions that differentiate between raw materials and finished goods within a factory and actual cargo for transportation. Various judgments were referred to support this argument.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and records, focusing on the taxability of services provided within the factory premises. It was noted that the services were undisputedly rendered within the factory premises. The Tribunal agreed with the first appellate authority's decision, which was based on previous Tribunal decisions and legal precedents. Recent judgments were cited to support the position that loading and unloading activities within factory premises do not fall under the category of cargo handling service. The issue was deemed settled by various decisions, and the first appellate authority was found to have correctly applied the law.

Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, stating that they were legally sound and did not warrant interference. The appeals were rejected, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's reasoning in arriving at the decision to uphold the Orders-in-Appeal.