COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. PREM PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to filing of this appeal by the respondent, in brief, are as under: -

(2.) SHRI R. Puri, ld. Departmental Representative, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and emphasized that the activity of the respondent, which was unloading and stacking of sugar, unloading of store materials gunny bags, chemicals, etc. in the sugar mill and removing of malba, amounted to cargo handling service.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. There is no dispute about the fact that the activity of the respondent was unloading of the store material, gunny bags, chemicals, etc. in the factory, shifting of the sugar bags from one place to another, removing garbage (malba), etc. There is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent was involved in packing and loading of the sugar onto vehicles/railway wagons for transport. The Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. v. C.C.E., B.B.S.R. reported in : 2008 (9) S.T.R. 531 (Tribunal -Kolkata) has held that transportation of the coal in the colliery and deployment of machines and tipper trucks for transport of coal from quarry beds to surface stocks/railway sidings is not covered by cargo handling service. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Coal Carriers v. C.C.E. & ST, Bhubaneswar reported in : 2011 (24) S.T.R. 395 (Orissa) in para 22 of the judgment has observed that cargo handling service is an adjunct service to the actual transportation of the goods and that pre -transportation activities like packing, loading and post -transportation like unloading/unpacking, etc. would be covered under "cargo handling service" category. Since in this case, activity of the Respondent is handling of the goods in the factory or godown or removing of garbage, the same cannot be said to be an activity adjunct to transportation of the goods. Therefore, the respondent's activity would not be covered by cargo handling service as defined under Section 65(23) as he has not handled any cargo i.e. the goods meant for transport. As such, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The Revenue's appeal is dismissed.