9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R. For the Respondent : Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate ORDER Per R.K. Singh : Revenue is in appeal against order-in-appeal dated 19.2.2009 which set aside the order-in-original dated 29.12.2008 in terms of which Cenvat credit of Rs. 80,618/- was disallowed and ordered to be recovered along with interest and penalty of Rs. 80,618/- was also imposed. 2. The primary adjudicating authority had he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST dated 6.8.2008 that in such a situation the entire service was to be treated as GTA service and not cargo handling service, holding that the said clarification was squarely applicable to the present case. 3. Revenue has contended that CBEC circular cited by Commissioner (Appeals) was issued in response to the representation of All India Motor Transport Congress. The essential point in that cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into account the nature of service to arrive at the classification of service as GTA service. It cited the clarification issued by CBEC vide Circular No. 104/7/2008 -ST dated 6.8.2008 the relevant paras of which are reproduced below : "Issue 2 : GTA providing service in relation to transportation of goods by road in a goods carriage also undertakes packing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not cargo handling service." We are of the view that in the given circumstances Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that the said CBEC clarification was squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also and therefore the impugned service was GTA service and not cargo handling service. 6. In the light of the forgoing analysis, we do not find any such infirmity in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
