TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of the case laws cited before him. We, therefore, find that the Order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is non-speaking and accordingly, the same is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/A/10/2008 - FO/A/75027/14 - Dated:- 21-1-2014 - D M Misra And I P Lal, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri C R Borah, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri S Chakraborty, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) PER : I P Lal The present Appeal is filed against the above Order-in-Appeal and briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s. Utpal Chetia , Proprietor-Shri Utpal Chetia was awarded a contract by M/s. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (BVFCL), vide Work Order No.BP-111/NIT-MFL/2002-2003/709 dated 23.10.2002, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chine malfunctions and urea are thrown out of the bags. Such urea are to be filled and stitched manually into the bags, weighted in the machineries owned by BVFCL and to carry such bags manually to platform for stacking or loading into truck or wagon not owned by the Appellant. Thus, the role of the Appellant is for rendering services being supportive and ancillary only. It is the contention of the ld. Advocate that in a similar case, the Tribunal in the case of J.J. Enterprise vs. CCE, Raipur, [2005 (2) STT-161-CESTAT:Del.] held that the appellant was neither the owner of the machine nor had it rented out, and his role was only for rendering the supportive and ancillary service, being completely an outsider to the main cargo handling activ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying on para 3.08 of the subsequent Work Order of BVFCL dated 12.11.2005, which provided for reimbursement of service tax at the rate of 10.20% adv. of the actual executed work by BVFCL, has arrived at a conclusion that service rendered by the Appellant, is taxable as Cargo Handling Services without examining the nature of the services rendered by the Appellant under various contracts vis-as-vis classification of the said services. We find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered any of the case laws cited before him. We, therefore, find that the Order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is non-speaking and accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, we remit the matter back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for passing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
