VICINIVAAS AGENCY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) It has been pleaded on behalf of the appellants that for the earlier period the lower appellate authority has already held that the service provided does not amount to clearing and forwarding service and he has also held that the demand was time -barred. It is further pleaded on behalf of the appellants that when the demand for the earlier period has been held as time -barred, extended period cannot be invoked for the latter period. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the service rendered in respect of the impugned goods namely, wheat is in the nature of cargo handling service and there is an exemption available for such service rendered for agricultural produce under Notification No. , dated 1 -8 -2002. The learned SDR supports the impugned order and the demand made against the appellants. However, we find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and are of the view that the appellants have made out a prima facie case for waiver of the pre -deposit. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre -deposit during pendency of the appeal.