Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs Nagar Taluka Shramik Seva Sangh
- CitationAppeal No. ST/20/10
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The services of harvesting sugarcane and transporting and unloading it at sugar factories, performed under engagement by sugar factories, are not classifiable as Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service, where the same activity has already been held by this Bench not to fall within that category in an earlier decision, and the issue is therefore not res integra.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT No. I
Appeal No. ST/20/10
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AGS(225)47/2009 dated 26.10.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Aurangabad Appellant Vs.
Nagar Taluka Shramik Seva Sangh Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S.V. Nair, Supdt. (AR) for appellant None for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing: 04.06.2015 Date of Decision: 04.06.2015
ORDER NO
Per: M.V. Ravindran
This appeal filed by Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AGS(225)47/2009 dated 26.10.2009.
2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability under the category of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service. The first appellate authority in the impugned order has set aside the order-in-original which was in appeal before him while the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, as adjudicating authority, confirmed the demands raised on the respondent on the very same issue.
3. None appeared for the respondent. Heard learned D.R and perused the records.
4. On perusal of the records, we find that the respondent in this case has been engaged by sugar factories for harvesting sugarcane, transporting and unloading the same at the sugar factories which according to Revenue authorities would fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service. We find that the issue is no more res integra as in the case of Bhogavati Janseva Trust vs. CCE 2014 (34) STR 410 (Tri. Mum) this Bench had allowed the appeals filed by various appellants engaging in the very same activity. Since the issue is already decided by this Bench, we find that the appeal filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal is liable to be rejected.
5. Appeal filed by Revenues is rejected.
(Dictated in Court)
(P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)
nsk
??
??
??
??
1 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free