9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivities will not come under the purview of service tax as a cargo handling services. The issue gets covered in the decision of the case of Renu Singh & Co. vs. CCE Hyderabad [2007 (3) TMI 63 - CESTAT,BANGALORE] where it was held that the identical services will not get covered under the cargo handling services. The respondent got themselves registered with the service tax department w.e.f. 16.06.2005 under the category of man power supply agency and were discharging their duty liability accordingly. As such the assessee's activity were fully in the knowledge of the Revenue, in which case delayed issuance of the show cause notice in the year 2007 is not justified at all. No suppression or malafide with an intent to evade payment of duty can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice culminated into an order passed by the Additional Commissioner confirming demand as also imposing penalties. 5. On appeal against the above order Commissioner (A) took into consideration the precedent decision of the Tribunal and observed that contract for filling empty bags, weighing and stitching the same and loading the bags into wagons / trucks standing in the factory itself or stacking the same on working platform godown would not amount to cargo handling agency services a would be correctly falling under packing services or man power supply services which were introduced to service tax net on 16.06.2005 and the appellant have been discharging their service tax liability from the said date onwards. Accordingly, he set aside the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transportation. Hence their activity is not the Cargo Handling Service as together with packing the transportation activity was not undertaken." 8. Revenue has not given us any justifiable reasons to take a view different than the one adopted by the Tribunal in the above referred precedent decision or the one taken by the Commissioner (A). 9. As such we are of the view that the issue on merits is covered by the precedent decision of the Tribunal and as such no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of Commissioner (A). 10. Apart from the above we also note that the respondent got themselves registered with the service tax department w.e.f. 16.06.2005 under the category of man power supply agency and were discharging their duty lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
