TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. M. V. Ravindran., Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Sh. B. Gunaranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Appellant Sh. Raghavendra Rao, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER [ Order Per : M. V. Ravindran] This appeal is filed by the revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.33/2010 (V-II) ST dated 19/11/2010. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The brief facts of the case, after filtering out unnecessary details are the respondents were engaged in the business providing services of loading of coal at railway goods shed, transporting unloading same at the premises of A ndhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd (APPML) and Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., Coastal Paper Units [(APPML)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention of the bench towards facts of the case and the findings recorded by adjudicating authority and first appellant authority. It is his submission that the clarification issued by Board as regards the cargo handling service by the Circular No. B-11/1/2002-TRU, dated 1-08-2002, clearly indicates that the activity under taken by the respondent would fall under cargo handling services. He also draws our attention to the agreement entered by the respondent with APPML and APPML (CP) to submit that loading and unloading is not incidental to the transporting but is the main activity. It is his submission that the reliance placed by the first appellate authority on the case laws is incorrect. He would rely upon the following decision in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circular, held as under: However, the adjudicating authority has distinguished the Board s circular by observing that, the amounts charged by the appellants for loading and unloading have not been included in the gross amounts on which the tax was paid by M/s APPM and M/s. APPLM (CP) under GTA as was classified in the clarification issued by the Board and escaped from service tax and hence they are not incidental to the activity of transportation and could not be treated as composite services. We find the above observation of the adjudicating authority is not tenable in law, in as much as, the Board has specifically clarified that, the method of invoicing does not alter the single composite nature of the service and classification is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and M/s. APPLM (CP), it cannot be viewed that the appellants are liable o pay service tax under Cargo Handling Service , in light of the guidelines on classification issued by the Board. I find the appellants case is squarely covered by the clarification issued by the board. It is a settled law that the clarifications issued by the CBEC are binding on the authorities below. 8. It can be seen from the above reproduced finding of the first appellate authority, that on factual matrix, it indicates that the respondent was required to do the transportation of coal from the railway head to the factory premises shifting of various materials within the premises. We perused the agreement which were produced before the lower authorities and find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
