9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side/u pheld in OIA 1. Slime disposal 29,43,470 Cleaning Service Para 13(a) Sl. No.1 Set aside 2. Loading of granulated slag in to wagons & trucks 3,54,661 Cargo Handling Service Para 13(b) Sl. No.2 Accepted and paid before SCN. Upheld 3. Pig Iron Handling in Corex I & II in factory of JSW Steel Ltd. 16,872 Cargo Handling service Para 13(c) Sl. No.3 Upheld 4. Granulated & Dry Slag Shifting in factor of JSW Steel Ltd. 10,87,096 Cargo Handling Service Para 13 (d) Sl. No.4 Upheld 5. Hiring of DG Set 9,350 BAS Para 13(e) Sl. No.5 Set aside 6. Supply and Laying of LDPE Film/Sheet on machinery/eq uipment 26,520 Construction Service Para 13(f) Sl. No.6 Upheld 7. Loading & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 65(23) read with Section 61(105)(zr) of the Finance Act, 1994. The issue stands settled by the following cases: * Signode India Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (50) STR 3 (SC) * CCE vs. Manoj Kumar: 2015 (40) STR 35 (All.) * CCE, Ranchi vs. Modi Construction Co.: 2011 (23) STR 6 (Jhar.) * Rungta Projects Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (9) GSTL 404 (Tri.-All.) * Gayatri Construction Co. vs. CCE: 2012 (25) STR 259 (Tri.-Del.) * CC vs. Jaspan Darshan Lal: 2016 (45) STR 156 (Tri.-All.) * Shri Ram Prakash vs. CCE: 2017-TIOL-4332-CESTAT-CHD. 2.2 The activities undertaken by them cannot be treated as cargo handling services inasmuch as they are not meant for any transport. At the most, these activities can be considered as part of Goods Transport Agency s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the records. We find force in the argument of the appellant that the activities undertaken by them at Sl. No.3,4,7,9 and 10 involved only temporary handling of the goods and shifting them from one place to another within the factory and as such, by no stretch of imagination come under the Cargo Handling Services as no transportation is involved in respect of the services discussed above. We rely on the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Gaytri Construction Co. vs. CCE: 2012 (25) STR 259 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it has held as under: "9. ....... We find that it is now well settled by the decisions of the Courts and Tribunal discussed above that shifting of goods within the factory premise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
