COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MANGALORE Vs. PAWAN ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE is aggrieved with Order -in -Appeal No.224/2005 CE dated 21 -10 -2005 setting aside the Order -in -Original No. 15/2005 dated 9 -5 -2005 by which the respondents activity of supplying labour to M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL) was considered to be coming within the ambit of Cargo Handling Services for levy of Service Tax. The respondent produced evidence to show that they were only supplying labours to HLL and labourers were working under the control of M/s. HLL for handling the goods within the factory for shipment, etc. They also contended that the labourers were working under the Rules and Regulations of HLL and the respondents were liable to pay minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act and were also contributing to the provident fund and ESI and paying bonus. Therefore, the supply of labourers to work in HLL would not come within the ambit of Cargo Handling Services. They also relied on Boards Circular F.No.B11/1/2002 TRU which clarifies the issue. The Commissioner (A) noted that the assessees were labour contractors registered under the Department of Labour, supplying manpower to HLL and following all the labour legislations, therefore, he held the activity not covered under the activity of Cargo Handling Services. He also relied on the ruling of the Tribunal rendered in the case of M/s. J&J Enterprises v. C.C.E. [2006 (3) S.T.R. 655 (Tri. -Del.) = 2005 (186) E.L.T. 189 (Tribunal)=2005 -TIOL -520 -CESTAT -DEL] wherein it was held that supplying manpower cannot be equated with providing Cargo Handling Services. Revenue is aggrieved with this order.

(2.) WE have heard both sides and have gone through the entire records. We find that the Commissioner (A) besides examining the issue in question to overrule the Revenues contention has also relied on Tribunals ruling rendered in the case of M/s. J and J Enterprises (supra) on the same issue holding that such supply of labour will not come within the ambit of Cargo Handling Services. There is no infirmity in Commissioner (A) following the Tribunals ruling. The said order has not been appealed before higher authorities. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.