https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766 The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. It held that the appellant, a manpower supplier in the cement manufacturing process, did not qualify as providing "cargo handling services" as per the statutory definition. The appellant's role in overseeing automated packing and loading processes was deemed supportive and ancillary, with no direct engagement in handling cargo. The lack of control over machinery and the contractual nature of the labor's role led to the conclusion that the appellant's activities did not meet the criteria of a cargo handling service renderer. en-us Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766 The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. It held that the appellant, a manpower supplier in the cement manufacturing process, did not qualify as providing "cargo handling services" as per the statutory definition. The appellant's role in overseeing automated packing and loading processes was deemed supportive and ancillary, with no direct engagement in handling cargo. The lack of control over machinery and the contractual nature of the labor's role led to the conclusion that the appellant's activities did not meet the criteria of a cargo handling service renderer. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766