Cce & St, Meerut-I vs M/S.Rana & Company

Date of Hearing/Order: 09.07.2015

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.28-CE/MRT/09 dated 27.2.09 passed by the CCE (A), Meerut-I))

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

Honble Ms.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? no 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? no 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? yes

CCE & ST, Meerut-I Appellant

Vs.

M/s.Rana & Company Respondent

Present for the Appellant: Shri Rajeev Tandon, AR

Present for the Respondent: Shri R.M.Saxena, Consultant

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

Honble Ms.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

FINAL ORDER NO.52460/2015

PER: R.K.SINGH

Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 27.2.2009 which set aside the primary adjudication order dated 16.9.2008 in terms of which a service tax demand of Rs.1,41,261/- alongwith interest and penalty was confirmed. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that loading and unloading, packing and unpacking and shifting sugar bags within the factory premises is not cargo handling service.

2. Revenue has contended that (i) the definition of cargo handling service has wide amplitude and should not be restricted meaning (ii) the word cargo has got different connotations is different contexts and should be allowed its full amplitude for the purpose of interpreting cargo handling service. Ld.DR fairly conceded that the issue is covered against Revenue by the judgement of CESTAT in the case of CCE, Meerut-I vs. Harbhjan Lal Rampal-2014 (33) STR 351 (Tri.-Del.) and Jharkhand High Court judgement in the case of CCE, Ranchi vs. Modi Construction Company-2011 (23) STR 6 (Jhar.).

3. Learned Consultant for the respondent states that as per Law Lexicon cargo carried by transport vehicle like ship cease to be cargo as soon as it is stored in a yard of any person and that it is correct interpretation to distinguish cargo and goods.

4. We have considered contention of both sides. We find that the issue is covered in favour of the respondent by the CESTAT judgement in case of Harbhjan Lal Rampal (supra) which held that loading and unloading, packing and unpacking and movement of the goods within the factory premises does not fall under cargo handling service. Similar view has been held by Jharkhand High Court in the case of Modi Construction Company (supra) and Gaytri Construction Co. vs. CCE, Jaipur-2012 (25) STR 259. Following the said precedents, we find no merit in the Revenues appeal and the same is therefore dismissed.

(dictated and Pronounced in the open court)

(SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) (R.K.SINGH)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

mk

3