9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 16/2007-ST dated 28.02.2007 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original No. 23/2006-ST dated 16.05.2006 passed by the ACCE, Palakkad-I Division. The appellants are covered under "Manpower Recruitment Agency" from the date when it was introduced. The Revenue proceeded to cover the same activity of supply of manpower under the category of "Cargo Handling Services" for the previous period. The appellants contended that they were only supplying manpower and they did not have any control over loading machines where cement bags were packed and loaded. However, their plea was rejected and the Commissioner did not accept the rulings rendered by the Tribunal in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve gone through the records of the case carefully. The main contention of the appellants is that the entire system of packing of cement, loading and unloading of the same is mechanized. The appellants supplied labourers who play an ancillary role in the entire set of activities. Further it has been stated that this issue has already been settled in the decision of the Tribunal relied on the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not accepted the contention of the appellants on the ground that as per the contract, amounts are paid to the appellants on the basis of the number of cement bags loaded and not on the basis of the man power supply. After going through the decision cited by the learned Advocate, I find that the situation in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch a view is taken, who ever supplies the manpower for an activity would become the provider of the activity itself. If manpower is supplied for construction, the manpower supplied would become the builder. This view is against the specific definitions of various services in the statute." Thus in the above decision, the Tribunal has held that the supplying labourers cannot be equated with the service of cargo handling even though they played some roles in the handling of the cargo. Since the facts in both the cases were identical, ratio of the above decision is clearly applicable to the present case. I also take into account the fact that the department has already brought the appellants within the ambit of service tax under the category ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
