TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h it packs within the factory unit of the principal manufacturer prior to the goods leaving the factory. It is nobody's case before us that the appellant is a cargo handling agency. All activity undertaken by the appellant, though related to packing activity, is at a stage when the goods are yet to clear the factory gate as manufactured goods for onward transportation. Prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act of 2005 with effect from 16.06.2005, the appellant would not be liable to pay service tax on the service rendered by it in terms of Section 65(23) read with Section 105(zr) of the Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Civil Appeal No: 6038-6039 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2017 - MR. RANJAN GOGOI AND M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax on its activity by the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') for the period prior to 2005, whereas in respect of the very same activity it has been found to be not so liable by the Bangalore Bench of the learned Tribunal, which order has since been affirmed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh being the jurisdictional High Court in respect of the lis decided by the Bangalore Bench of the learned Tribunal. 5. To appreciate the issues arising in the present case, Section 65(23) which defines cargo handling service ; Section 65(105)(zr) which deals with the taxable service rendered by a cargo handling agency ; Section 65 (76b) which defines packaging activity and Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant liable to tax for the pre-amended period (prior to 16.06.2005) on the basis that the activity undertaken by it involves rendering of cargo handling service would run counter to the expressed legislative intention in a situation where its liability, for the post amendment period, on the basis that the appellant is engaged in packaging activity has not been disputed by the Revenue. 7. At this stage notice must also be had of the fact that there is no dispute on the fact that the liability sought to be fastened on the appellant is on account of the activity undertaken by the appellant in the manufacturing unit of the principal manufacturer, namely, Tata Refractories Limited. It is also not in dispute that such activity is prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndise taken on board a vessel. 10. Admittedly, the appellant has nothing to do with the transportation of goods which it packs within the factory unit of the principal manufacturer prior to the goods leaving the factory. 11. There is yet another aspect of the case which would require a mention. In a Circular bearing F.No.B.11/1/2002-TRU dated 01.08.2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, services liable to tax under the category of cargo handling services , has been clarified to mean services provided by cargo handling agencies which is, in effect what Section 105(zr) provides for. 12. Clause 3 of the circular is in the following terms: 3. The services which are liable to tax under this category are the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
