Cce, Meerut-I vs Shri Dheeraj Kumar Mishra

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 104-CE/MRT-I/2009 dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central ExciseNew Delhi)

For Approval & Signature :

Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would 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?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

CCE, Meerut-I Appellant

Vs.

Shri Dheeraj Kumar Mishra Respondent

Appearance:

Shri B.B. Sharma, D.R. - for the Appellant

None - for the Respondent

Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

F. Order No. 52304/2015

Per R.K. Singh :

Revenue is in appeal against order-in-appeal dated 31.8.2009 which set aside the order-in-original dated 31.3.2008 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs.82,746/- was confirmed under cargo handling service on the ground that the work of loading unloading and stacking of sugar bags in godowns within the factory premises is liable to service tax under the said service.

2. The Revenue has contended that these activities are covered under cargo handling service defined as loading, unloading, packing or un-packing of cargo and also includes cargo handling services provided to freight in the special containers or for non-container freight as per Section 65(25) of Finance Act, 1994.

3. The ld. Advocate for the respondent states that the issue is covered in its favour by the judgement of Purshottam Lal Vs. CCE, Jallandhar  2015 (38) STR 161 (Tri.-Del.) and Gaytri Construction Co. Vs. CCE - 2012 (25) STR 259 (Tri.).

4. As contended by the respondent, we find that the issue is indeed squarely covered in favour of the respondent by the judgement in the cases of Purshottam Lal (supra) and Gaytri Construction Co. (supra) wherein it has been held that loading, unloading, lifting and stacking of sugar bags within the factory premises is not covered under cargo handling service.

5. In view of the said precedent, we do not find any merit in Revenues appeal and dismiss the same.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

RM

2