Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
C.C.E., C. And S.T. vs Vinshree Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. on 16 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2008[10]S.T.R.473
ORDER Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides.
2. Learned S.D.R., Shri J.K Jha appearing for the appellant Commissioner, in pursuance of the Bench direction dated 3-1-08, has produced a copy of the Notification No. 41/2007 which gives additional charge of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi for the limited purpose of reviewing the Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar-II. As such, the preliminary objection taken by the learned Advocate, Shri Kartik Kurmy for the respondents that the Department's appeals have been filed without a valid authorisation does not hold good and the said contention is rejected. Hence, with the consent of both sides, we proceed to hear and decide the appeals of the Department on merit.
3. Shri Kurmy, learned Advocate for the respondents states that the activities undertaken by the present respondents are exactly the same, as was in the case of Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. and Anr. v. C. Cex, Cus. & ST, BBSR dealt in Tribunal's Order Nos. A-1878-1879/KOL/07, dated 2-11-07 2008 (9) S.T.R. 531 (Tri. - Kol.) and the contracts were executed also with the same Organisation namely, M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.
4. He, further, states that the case of M/s. Sainik Mining & Allied Services (cited supra) lias already been decided by this Bench of the Tribunal holding that the impugned activities regarding transportation of coal within the mining area are not covered by the category of cargo handling service for the impugned period. As such, he contends that the Departmental appeals have no legs to stand on and the same should be dismissed.
5. We find that the lower Appellate Authority has held that the activities undertaken by the respondents for the impugned period do not attract levy of Service Tax under the category of cargo handling services. These appeals have been filed by the Department being aggrieved by the decision of the lower Appellate Authority.
6. Heard the learned S.D.R., Shri J.K Jha for the Revenue. He has no information as to whether the Department has gone in further appeal against the Order of the Tribunal dated 2-11-07 cited above.
7. In view of the fact that the issues involved in these appeals and the activities undertaken by the respondents are similar to the ones which have been considered and decided upon by this Bench Order dated 2-11-07 (cited above) and no other decision contrary to the same by any higher court has been shown to us, we follow the ratio of the said Order and hold that the impugned activities are not subject to tax under cargo handling services and consequently, we reject both the appeals filed by the Department.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)