9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipur [2011 (9) TMI 481 - CESTAT, New Delhi], where it was held that shifting of goods within the factory premises and the manpower supplied by the service provider cannot be held to be classifiable under Cargo Handling Service. The appellants have contended the service fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment Agency, which were brought under the service tax w.e.f 16.06.2005. The appellant was also registered with the said category w.e.f. 28.06.2005 by the department itself and thereafter, no objection has been taken by the Revenue. These facts support the appellants claim that they were providing Manpower Recruitment Agency service even during the period prior to their date of registration. Extended period of limitation - Held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant did not get themselves registered under the said category and did not file any returns etc., they have indulged in suppression and by justifying invocation of the longer period of limitation, he confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties. 3. The said adjudication order was challenged by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that they never provided services under the category of Cargo Handling Services inasmuch as they were only providing manpower to M/s JCT ltd., and they supplied labourers to JCT only for working as per the instruction of JCT Ltd. for handling the goods within their factory premises. The said labourers were working under the Rules and Regulations of JCT Ltd. who were liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. We find that even in terms of the said contract, services to be provided by the appellant were internal movement of the cargo in the factory of the JCT. There is no dispute on the above scope of the services provided by the appellant. The legal issue in this regard stands concluded by various decisions of the Tribunal. In the case of Gaytri Construction Co. Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2012 (25) STR 259 (Tri. Delhi.) , it was observed that shifting of goods within the factory premises and the manpower supplied by the service provider cannot be held to be classifiable under 'Cargo Handling Service'. Similarly, the Hon ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of CCE, Ranchi Vs. Modi Construction Company - 2011 (23) STR 6 (Jhr.) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
