9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices as no transportation is involved in respect of the services - reliance placed in the case of Gaytri Construction Co. vs. CCE [2011 (9) TMI 481 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. Also, laying of sheet on machinery cannot be equated to construction activity. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/725/2008-DB - Final Order No. 20791 / 2018 - Dated:- 5-6-2018 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. M. S. Nagaraja, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : P. Anjani Kumar The appellants are engaged in certain activities in relation to the factory of JSW Steel Ltd. as shown below:- Sl. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 26,520 Construction Service Para 13(f) Sl. No.6 Upheld 7. Loading Shifting of pellets from pellet plant to RMHS yard within factory 3,943 Cargo Handling Service Para 13(g) Sl. No.7 Upheld 8. Excavation by Poclain 82,336 Site formation clearance and excavation Para 13(h) Sl. No.8 Set aside 9. Loading shifting of pig iron within factory 19,645 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s: 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 service attracting levy of service tax under reverse charge mechanism of Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 premises will not come within the scope of Cargo Handling Services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
