https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340431 The SC held that services rendered by the appellant constituted packaging activity under Section 65(76b) rather than cargo handling service under Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994. The court distinguished between packing related to cargo handling and packaging of goods, noting the appellant's activities occurred within the factory premises before goods left for transportation. Since the appellant was not a cargo handling agency and performed services prior to goods clearing the factory gate, it was not liable for service tax under the cargo handling provisions before the 2005 amendment. Appeal allowed in favor of appellant. en-us Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340431 The SC held that services rendered by the appellant constituted packaging activity under Section 65(76b) rather than cargo handling service under Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994. The court distinguished between packing related to cargo handling and packaging of goods, noting the appellant's activities occurred within the factory premises before goods left for transportation. Since the appellant was not a cargo handling agency and performed services prior to goods clearing the factory gate, it was not liable for service tax under the cargo handling provisions before the 2005 amendment. Appeal allowed in favor of appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340431