TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated as C&F agent service or cargo handling service? - Held that: - the issue is covered in favor of the appellant as per the ratio laid-down in the case of Narottam & Company vs. CCE, Jaipur [2013 (8) TMI 291 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was observed that the appellant only providing the labour for loading of cement at the rail heads, loading into the trucks for transportation to the storage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Jaipur. The period of dispute is from 01.04.2000 to 09.09.2004. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as handling agent of M/s Binani Cement Limited, Ahmedabad. The job of the appellant is only loading and unloading of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order in para 2.3 has mentioned that the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant was providing merely the handling services as mentioned above. During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the godown and other facilities were provided by M/s Binani Cement Limited. 5. From the record it appears that the issue is covered in favour of the appellant as per the ratio laid-down in the case of Narottam Company vs. CCE, Jaipur 2014 (33) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the godown is arranged by the principal M/s Binani Cement and not only this, even the godown has been rented by M/s Binani Cement only where they have deployed their own staff. Thus, the activity of the appellant is only of forwarding and not clearing and forwarding and hence in view of judgment of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Panchkula v. Kulcip Medicines (P) Ltd., (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
