9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 J & J Enterprises Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2006 (3) STR 655(Tri.-Del.).=2005(186) E.L.T.189 Hence, this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides in the matter. 3. The learned Counsel submits that in an identical situation with similar type of contract, this bench, in the case of K.K. Appachan V. CCE, Palakkad - 2007 (7) STR 230(Tri.-Bang.) took the view that mere supply of manpower could not bring the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccepted 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 present appeal is identical to the one decided by Northern Bench of the Tribunal and relied on by the appellants. The Revenue has not disputed the fact that the appellants supplies labourers to M/s. MCL. The appellant is in possession of licence from the Labour Department. In the course of hearing, the learned Advocate for the appellant stated that the appellant has already paid the service tax under the category of manpower recruitment a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 of "manpower recruitment agency". In the result, the impugned order has no merit. The appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the category of cargo handling service. Moreover as the issue involves interpretation of law, the longer period cannot be invoked. The appellant is not liable for payment of interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. In the result I allow the appeal with consequential relief. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
