TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 1081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed against the above Order-in-Appeal and briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s. Utpal Chetia , Proprietor-Shri Utpal Chetia was awarded a contract by M/s. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (BVFCL), vide Work Order No.BP-111/NIT-MFL/2002-2003/709 dated 23.10.2002, which has been extended from time to time. The scope of services as per contract rendered by him was - stacking of fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld the order of the lower authority. Hence, the present Appeal is before this Tribunal. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that in this case, the role of the Appellant was to provide manpower to BVFCL for managing various points in the Bagging Plant. In fact, BVFCL has its automatic machine which picks up the bag, fills it and stitches and drops the urea packed bags upto and into Stacki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was only for rendering the supportive and ancillary service, being completely an outsider to the main cargo handling activity. The ld. Advocate also submits that this case law was brought to the notice of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), but he had not given any finding on this aspect. It is the contention that according to sub-clause (zr) of Clause 105 of Section 65 of Chapter V of the Finance A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. Ld. AR for the revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Heard both sides and persued the records. We find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned Order has merely quoted the observation of the lower authority that the plea of the Appellant was that he was an individual and not a cargo handling agent, as the Appellant was a proprietary firm. The ld. Comm....