9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te as manufactured goods for onward transportation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Misc. Application No.76189/2018 & Appeal No. ST/400/2010 - ORDER NO MO/76081/2018 & FO/A/77223/2018 - Dated:- 13-7-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BIJAY KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate Ms. S. Mundra, CA for the Applicant (s) Shri A. K. Biswas, Supdt. (AR) for the Revenue (s) ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary : The appellant has filed the present Miscellaneous Application for substitution of the Cause Title. 2. The advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the applicant company has transferred the business of industrial packaging to Signode India Limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is his submission tht the activity undertaken is packaging services specifically covered under Section 65 (105) (zzzf) only with effect from 16th May 2005 and not taxable prior to this period. He further submits that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the appellant s own cse wherein the Apex Court set aside the order of the Tribunal which has been relied upon in the impugned order. He submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as Signode India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs reported in 2017 (50) STR (SC) has decided the issue in favour of the appellant. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the above decision of the Hon ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... go handling activity. A view, which would make the appellant liable to tax for the pre-amended period (Prior to 16.06.2005) on the basis that the activity undertaken by it involves rendering of cargo handling service would run counter to the expressed legislative intention in a situation where its liability, for the post amendment period, on the basis that the appellant is engaged in packaging activity has not been disputed by the Revenue. 7. At this stage notice must also be has of the fact that there is no dispute on the fact that the liability sought to be fastened on the appellant is on account of the activity undertaken by the appellant in the manufacturing unit of the principal manufacturer, namely, Tata Refractories Limited. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsive dictionary, cargo is Goods and merchandise taken on board a vessel. 10. Admittedly, the appellant has nothing to do with the transportation of goods which it packs within the factory unit of the principal manufacturer prior to the goods leaving the factory. 11. There is yet another aspect of the case which would require a mention. In a Circular bearing F. No. B.11/1/2002TRU, dated 1.8.2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, services liable to tax under the category of cargo handling services , has been clarified to mean services provided by cargo handling agencies which is, in effect what Section 105 (zr) provides for. 12. Clause 3 of the Circular is in the following terms. 3. The services which are l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... packing activity, is at a stage when the goods are yet to clear the factory gate as manufactured goods for onward transportation. 15. In the light of the discussions that have preceded, we are of the view that prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act of 2005 with effect from 16.6.2005, the appellant would not be liable to pay service tax on the service rendered by it in terms of Section 65(23) read with Section 105(zr) of the Act. 9. By respectfully following the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Commissioner confirming the demand of service under the category of cargo handling services is not sustainable and is therefore set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
