Tribunal rules renting bullock carts for sugarcane harvesting not taxable under tangible goods service

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that 'Renting of Bullock Carts' during harvesting seasons for procuring sugarcane from fields is not subject to service tax under the category of 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service,' based on the precedent established in the Bhima SSK Ltd. case. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues involved:
Whether the appellant is required to discharge service tax on 'Renting of Bullock Carts' during harvesting seasons for procuring sugarcane from fields.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. AV(198)183/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad. The main issue in this appeal was whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the 'Renting of Bullock Carts' during harvesting seasons for procuring sugarcane from fields. The appellant's advocate, Shri M.P. Joshi, argued that previous judgments by the Tribunal, specifically the case of Bhima SSK Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Pune-III and M/s. Shankar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III, support the appellant's position.

The Revenue's advocate, Shri Vivek Dwivedi, did not present any contrary decision to challenge the appellant's argument. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the case of Bhima SSK Ltd. where it was held that 'Renting of Bullock Carts' for procuring sugarcane during harvesting seasons does not fall under the category of 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service' for the purpose of service tax. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that 'Renting of Bullock Carts' during harvesting seasons for procuring sugarcane from fields is not subject to service tax under the category of 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service,' based on the precedent established in the Bhima SSK Ltd. case. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

---