TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is rendered is not relevant for classification of the service. In view of the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Amrit Sanjivni Sugarcane Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (8) TMI 58 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and Samarth Sevabhavi Trust [2013 (8) TMI 218 - CESTAT MUMBAI], we hold that the impugned demands are not sustainable in law. - Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/141, 147, 151, 170, 173 and 223/2010-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/1274-1279/2013-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 12-6-2013 - Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (T) and Anil Choudhary, Member (J) Shri V.B. Gaikwad, Bharat Raichandani, M.H. Patil, Mrs. Padmavati Patil, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri P.N. Das, Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER There are six ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 dated 31-12-2009 CCE Kolhapur 2,87,15,685/- Vasantdada SSK Ltd. 6 ST/223/10 Mouni Maharaj Sevabhavi Vishwastha Sanstha 2/ST/2010 dated 29-1-2010 CCE Kolhapur 2,21,20,788/- Dudhganga Vedganga SSK Ltd. 2. In all these cases, the appellants entered into agreements with the sugar factory (s) for harvesting and transportation of sugarcane from the farmers fields to the sugar factory. The farmers also entered into an agreement with the sugar factory for sale of same. The appellants engaged contractors for harvesting of the sugarcane and also for the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are as follows : 3.1 From the contracts entered into by the various parties involved, it can be easily seen that there is no supply of manpower by the appellants to the sugar factory. The agreement with the sugar factory is for harvesting of sugarcane and transportation of the same to the sugar factory and not for supply of any manpower. The consideration has also been paid on tonnage basis of the sugarcane supplied to the sugar factory which clearly indicates that it is not for any supply of manpower. The consideration has been paid for the activity relating to harvesting of sugarcane and transportation of sugarcane. On the freight incurred by the sugar factory, whenever the sugarcane was transported by trucks/goods carriage by road, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uxiliary Service (BAS) and this Tribunal in the case of Amrit Sanjivni Sugarcane Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad vide Order No. A/532/2013/CSTB/C-I, dated 2-4-2013 and Samarth Sevabhavi Trust v. CCE, Aurangabad vide Order No. A/1158/2013/CSTB/C-I, dated 24-5-2013 have held that the activities undertaken by the appellants merits classification under BAS and not under supply of manpower service. Accordingly, they plead for allowing the appeals. 4. The Ld. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue on the other hand reiterates the findings given by the adjudicating authority. It is his submission that even though there is no direct supply of manpower, the work involved in the present transaction relates to engagement of manpowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engages less manpower, he will make more profits while an inefficient contractor engaging more manpower would make less profits. In other words, since the consideration is received on the quantity of sugarcane delivered, the essential nature of service is the harvesting and supply of sugarcane. How the service is rendered is not relevant for classification of the service. From the statutory definitions given above and the contracts entered into by the appellants, it is clear that there is no element of manpower supply or recruitment by the appellants to the sugar factory and therefore, the services rendered by the appellants cannot be classified under manpower recruitment or supply agency services, by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants in harvesting and transporting the goods comes under sub-clause (vii) of Section 65(19). Since the impugned demands have been raised under the category of manpower supply or recruitment agency services, such demands cannot be sustained at all. 6. In view of the above and also in view of the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Amrit Sanjivni Sugarcane Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Samarth Sevabhavi Trust (cited supra), we hold that the impugned demands are not sustainable in law. Accordingly we set aside the demands and allow these appeals. Since the appeals are allowed on merits, we are not going into the other issues raised by the appellants. We are informed that in some cases, the appellants have made payments. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
