2008 (6) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o movement of what is called “cargo” from one place to another place as understood in common parlance – held that Circular No. 232/2/2006-Cx.4 relied upon by revenue is contradictory to decision of tribunal – hence stay is granted - S/79/2008 - 456/2008 - Dated:- 5-6-2008 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the appellants is that none of these activities would merit classification as "Cargo Handling Service" inasamuch as there is no movement of what is called "cargo" from one place to another place as understood in common parlance. In this case, the movement of limestone in unpacked condition is entirely within the mining area and the same cannot be considered to be cargo handling. It is also sub .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s squarely covered by a circular of the Board viz No. 232/2/2006-Cx.4 dated 12-11-2007, wherein activities undertaken at mines prior to enactment of the Finance Act, 2007 were held to be "Cargo Handling Services". In his rejoinder, the learned counsel submits that the view taken by the Board is contrary to the ratio of the Tribunal's decisions cited above. 2. After considering the submissions, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X