Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E. Indore vs M/S. Arvind Singh Lal Singh on 7 October, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Cross Application No. ST/CROSS/110/2011
Appeal No. ST/811/2010-CU(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. IND-I/056/2010 dated 05.02.2010 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Indore].
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Shri V.Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
C.C.E. Indore .Applicants
Vs.
M/s. Arvind Singh Lal Singh .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the Appellant Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri V.Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 07.10.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 54700/2016-CU(DB) Per V.Padmanabhan:
The present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.07.2010 confirming demand passed by the Commissioner (A) Indore. The respondent is engaged in the activities of unloading fertilizers from the wagons standing at the platform, loading into the truck from railway platform, transfer to local warehouses, unloading from trucks and stacking in the warehouses. They have also undertaken storage of the goods in the godown and transportation from the godown to other premises of the dealers or to another godown as directed by the supplier. They carried out these services to various fertilizer company such as Gujrat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Company Ltd., National Fertilizer Ltd., etc.
2. Revenue entertained the view that the activities carried out by the respondent would be liable to service tax under the category of cargo handling services classifiable under the provisions of section 65 (23) of the Finance Act 1994. The original authority vide his order dated 23.12.2009 upheld the above view and rejected the refund claim filed by the respondent. When the issue was challenged before the Commissioner A() he set aside the order by classifying the activities undertaken by the respondent under the category of goods transport agency. Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. We have heard Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the Appellants and Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent.
3. Revenues ground of appeal are that the activities undertaken by the respondent as per the contracts with the fertilizer companies are squarely covered by the cargo handling service. The Commissioner (A) has erred in classifying these activities under the category of goods transport agency.
4. The Ld. Advocate on the other hand submits that the activities are rightly classifiable under GTA and demand is to be set aside.
5. The definition of cargo handling services under section 65 (23) is as follows:
Cargo handling service means loading, unloading, packing of cargo and includes cargo handling services provided for freight in special containers or for non-containerized freight, services provided by a container freight terminal or any other freight terminal, for all modes of transport and cargo handling services incidental to freight, but does not include Handling of export cargo or passenger baggage or mere transportation of goods.
6. This involves loading, unloading packing of cargo and includes cargo handling services in special containers. From the various activities carried out by the respondent it is evident that assessee is transporting fertilizers, as per the direction of the various suppliers, from the railway platform to the premises of dealer or godown. No doubt they also undertake the activities of loading, unloading of cargo from the local warehouse to the trucks as also at the premises of the godown. Clearly these activities cannot be covered under the definition of cargo handling services as given above. The activity undertaken by the respondent is of transportation of the goods and the activities of unloading and loading are clearly incidental to the main activity of transportation of goods. Such activity should be rightly classifiable under the goods transportation agency as has been held by the Commissioner (A).
7. In line with the above discussion we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner (A). Hence the impugned order is upheld and the Revenues appeal is rejected.
[Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court]
(V.Padmanabhan) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
ST/811/2010-CU(DB)