^ INJ'HE HIGH ^OURT QF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR fCHHATTISGARHI ,@te3sEti[iiii C.E.A. N0. OF 2005~ / .-••'' (0-v APPELLANT <)l-^^.>)" ^M^ ^yy ^yy ^<cs.--" ^;f- cp-icc^T0^ COMMISSIONER/ CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE BHAWAN DHAMTAR.I ROAD,TIKARAPARA, RAIPUR (C.G.)-492 001 Versus M/S 3 & 3 ENTERPRISES r'C/OLAFARGE INDIA LTD., ARASMETA CEMENT PLANT, P.0.- GOPALNAGAR, DISTT-JANJGIR- CHAMPA (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION35-G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT^-1944j RESPONDENT ^^^i^s^^^^ii^sss^i^^s^i^^^ssi^s^ APPEl.UWT S^SSSSHT •&U(&M*No«42<»(2W : eoRiBriwienw, Custonis. VM—f WUsJ »J Enterpris . •<»Blae. .And APREAL UNIffiR SEC1TON 36^ OF TfrffiCENTRAL EXCIS6 ACf. 1944 ~~ Dhrtston Bench: Hon'ble Shrt I.M. Quifdiui|k Hon'bteShrt NJC AMrtoOA Preswit: Shri Bhiabma Kh^er.coimsel for Uie appelhmt ShrifihaskarPayashi, counsel ftwthe respomtent <«ALCT®ER (Passed on 16th day ofAugust, WWT Per I.M.Quddusi. J. Heard. 2. ThfeappealinwrivesthBfoltoirtngsubstantialqye^onsoftaw; °1. WheUwr the a^ellate Tribunat has acted according to law in altowing Ihe appesd of the respondent? 2. Whetfier the ^apelhrte Tribunal tas acted in accordanca wWi lawin niodjtylngflte order <rf the Commisstoner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Raipur vwthoutpreperiy consldering the provislons <rf the contract deed between the respomtent and Mfe Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. ahd hss rightly setting - aside the order of the Coromissioner ef Excise and Gtistoms, Raipur?" Theretore, we admttthis appeal and having heard leamed counsel for the parUes, w®are of the ofrfnion Siat ttie an»eirt be decided finally." 3. Brief of tt>e fads of the case are fcat U»BrtBpwident M^J & J EnterprisK enteredinto contract wlth M/s Lafarge tndia Pvt. Ltd. 'N. y s^ :.-7^t;' '''~^^~- .».» Gopalnagar (C.G.) whteh tesued work order mentioning the conditions ttierein. The subjert of work order was pactdng and toading of Cement and Cement Clinker into the Raihaay wagon, on as and when required basis. The beginning of the order is that 'Wth rtference to your offer and subsequent disGiesion we had with you, we are pleasedto award you the wori< order for the job as mentKme^ in subject as per followlng tenns and con^dons". The fwst condltion mentioned in the contract was loadii^ of cllnter in BCXC/BCXT/BCN/BCNA (Approx. 56-60 MT /Wagon) wagon on as and when required basis - Prior jntimatlon for clinker toadtng activitias will be givan to you by our reprroentetlve of pacldng plant/Logistics department. You vwll carry out flie toa&ig <rf 2 wagons In each rake (one rake = 40 wagons). Othsr con<Wons mendoned in ths oider are not to mention here at thte stage. 4. The Superintendent, Centraf Excisa, Range-1, Bllaspur sent a letter dated 27-06-2003 to take out Servfce Tax regtotration certWcate and discharge service tax HabUity. Being aggrievfld with tte said order, the respondent ffled an appeal bafore the e<»n(BtSstoner (Appeals-9, Central Excise Raipur Inrtthe same was dtemteed vide orcter dated 15-01-2W4. Thereafter, the respondent pntferred a second appeal before the Custoffis Exclse San^a Tax A(yellate Trfbunal pbr short 'CESTAT") which wasallowed vlds impuywd order dated 17-03-2005, IntBr-alia, hojdirg ttiat the mspomtent waa not rendering cargo handlir^ servtee. In the gh/en fectual sltuaUon.ca^e handling cannot take place and the respondent had na eontrol on them amt, therefore, respondent is right in his contenttonttwrttte onty supplying manpower and siq»plying manpower eannM t>e aqttitod with providlng the service in qu^Bon. and such a vlew tetaken. whoever suppties tte manpower tbr an actMty wwifd iecOTie ths provlder of the acUvBy. If manpower Is supplied for comtnicBon, the manptwer would become the buUdar. TherefeWi Ibls t^w is a^iin^ the specBte definitions of various aenriees in the statute. Thus, e CTiiter impugned before Bie ^wBate Tijbunal i.e. the oider <rf tha Commi^ionsr (Anieals) WR srt aakto, h«ice<ha Inrtnit appeal has been fited by ttie Gommisstoner, CtiatomsandC^nlealfiiiehe. 5. We hawe perused the ordar impu(ywl pa»edty tts Afq»We Tribunal. The Appeltate Tribunal has nrt inaiUwied in Ns ader Kw dXHit the contiact made brtiwen rsspondent andMtel.rtaiBe ImlH Pvt. Ltd. throi^h tte woricwder. ta Ihct, wtoatewer wi»menUeiwdln the work oidsr waa lh»ftinctton ^ fte respendert—dwhetter It eomes wtthin ths cat^ory <rf ca»go^hN»dlngsafvtees and tt^^^^nds upon the teroa and conditions ef ttie wortc order. Therdiwe, trithout pemsing the contents of ttie atowQ work order, tha flndlr^ cannot bs said to be correct. 6. In view of (he above, we are of the opinton •iat Uie matter requires recpnsideration by the ^ipellate Tribunal. 7. In view of the above. we altow ttite eypeal in part and art aside the impugned order passed in the appeal ^T/SOTWNB^SIN^. We remitthe mattertothe appeflat®Tribunal witti a dmcUantfutth* appeal before the AppeUate Tribimal shalt be restomd ta te ertginal number andshall be decktad afredi In flw l^ht cf the obNentton made abow. ~~~—-— i 5fl/- g^ 1 N.K.Agarwal I.M.Quddussi ! Judge Judge -l"y