2017 (2) TMI 1274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e respondent ORDER Per Justice Dr. Satish Chandra: The present appeal is filed by the Department against the Order-in-Appeal No. 116/2012 dated 5.10.2012 . 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the relevant period (8.10.2005 to 31.8.2009), the appellant was engaged in providing services under the category of cargo handling services. The department was of the view that the same is subj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry premises till the work is over. Hence, the principal activity of the respondent i.e. providing the service does not fall within the ambit of the definition of Cargo Handling Service. 5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant as per the ratio laid down in the case of CCE Vs. M/s S.B. Construction Pvt. Ltd .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the gross amount charged is unsustainable. When the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of any penalty simply does not arise." Similar views were expressed in the following cases : (i) Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2013 (32) STR 49 (Tri.-Delhi.) (ii) Karamjeet Singh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2013 (32) STR 740 (Tri.-Delhi) (iii) CCE, Pune-II Vs. V.B. Patil Kanw .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X