Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Meerut-I vs Shri Surinder Kumar on 27 July, 2010

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX 
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, 
NEW DELHI

COURT No. II


ST/STAY/891/10 IN AND ST/529 OF 2010

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 145-CE/MRT-I/09 dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Meerut-I, Meerut]

CCE, Meerut-I                                                Appellant
Reptd. By Shri Vijay Kumar, SDR
	Versus

Shri Surinder Kumar                                    Respondent

None Date of Hearing/decision: 27th July, 2010 Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member FINAL ORDER NO. DATED Per D.N. Panda:

Although stay hearing was fixed yesterday, none appeared for the other day. Therefore, matter was adjourned for today. There is no evidence of any vakalatnama on record. Therefore, assistance of learned D.R. is taken for disposal of the matter.

2. Learned D.R. supports the order of the adjudicating authority and also the grounds of appeal of Revenue. According to the Revenue service provided by the respondent is squarely covered under the ambit of Cargo Handling Service as the respondent was engaged in providing the services of loading, unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay service tax.

3. Heard learned D.R. and also gone through the order of the learned appellate authority. The appellate authority has made a finding that the goods moved within the factory itself for which the respondent cannot be brought under the ambit of Cargo Handling Service. We have also examined para 7 of the adjudication order wherein the adjudicating authority clearly observed that there was loading and unloading and shifting of sugar bags from floor of the mill house to godowns, from one godown to another. Once such activity comes to record, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Modi Construction Co. vs. CCE, Ranch, reported in 2008 (12) STR 34 (Tri.-Kolkata).

4. Noticing that the matter can be resolved at the interim stage itself as the same is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Modi Construction Co. (supra) we dispense with the pre-deposit, dismiss the stay application as well as appeal filed by the Revenue.

(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAKESH KUMAR) TECHNICAL MEMBER RK 3