9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated:- 14-11-2018 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri. A. Cletus, ADC (AR) for the Appellant Shri. Santhana Gopalan D., Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per P. Dinesha: The assessee/respondent is registered with the Service Tax Department for providing Goods Transport Agency services on freight. 2. Investigation conducted at the assessee s premises by the Officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Chennai revealed that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture and supply of Ready Mix Concrete (RCM) amongst other activities and the same is transported to their customer s site through transit mixer vehicles. The RMC is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise (Appeals), Chennai who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 61/2011 (MST) dated 26.05.2011 allowed the appeal passed by the assessee holding that the activity of pumping RMC at construction sites did not attract service tax under the category of transport of goods other than water through pipeline or through other conduit . Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has come in appeal before this forum. 4. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. ADC (AR) Shri. A. Cletus appeared on behalf of the Revenue and Ld. Advocate Shri. Santhana Gopalan D. appeared on behalf of the assessee/respondent. 5. During the course of hearing, Ld. AR reiterated the grounds of appeal and contended that as long as the pumping is done to transport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the appellate authority and the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. 8.2 We find that there is no change with regard to facts, the above ruling and hence the ratio decidendi squarely applies to the case on hand. Moreover, the Revenue was unable to produce any Orders/judgements contrary to or distinguishing the above Order of this Bench ( supra ). Going therefore by the ratio laid down in the above case, we are of the view that the impugned Order does not call for any interference for which reason the same is upheld. 9. The appeal filed by the Revenue is therefore dismissed. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open Court) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
