JUDGMENT : Alpesh Y. Kogje, J. 1. This appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 directed against the order dated 13th October 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT for the sake of convenience and brevity), West Zone Branch, Ahmedabad. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under:-- 3. A show cause notice dated 27th October 2006 came to be issued upon the respondent - State Federation of Co-Operative Sugar Factories Ltd., as to why service tax amount of Rs. 7,68,530/- should not be demanded and recovered under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and as to why the penalties may not be imposed under Sections 75, 76 and 78 of the same Act. 4. Countering the show cause notice, a detailed reply is filed by the respondent contending inter alia that the respondent-federation is not a Club or an Association, which could be covered within the meaning of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 and that the activities undertaken by the federation were for the promotion of agriculture, which would fall in the disclaimer portion of Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994. 5. It appears that the show-cause notice came to be adjudicated and by order-in-original dated 28th March 2008, Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III, confirmed the service tax and imposed penalty. 6. This order came to be challenged by the respondent - federation before the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise, Ahmedabad and the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise, Ahmedabad vide its order dated 24th October 2008 was pleased to reject the appeal. 7. Against the said rejection, the respondent - federation preferred the appeal before the CESTAT, Ahmedabad and the CESTAT, Ahmedabad considering the rival contentions and the position of law was pleased to allow the appeal. 8. This decision of the tribunal is a subject matter of challenge here in this appeal. 9. Heard learned advocate for the appellant. He has taken this Court through the proposals of show-cause notice and submitted that the order-in-original and order-in-appeal were justified and in conformity with the provisions of law. 10. 8. This decision of the tribunal is a subject matter of challenge here in this appeal. 9. Heard learned advocate for the appellant. He has taken this Court through the proposals of show-cause notice and submitted that the order-in-original and order-in-appeal were justified and in conformity with the provisions of law. 10. It was contended that the CESTAT has erred in interpreting the Section 65 of the Finance Act, more particularly the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2011 and a clarification issued by the CBEC vide a letter dated 28th February 2011, whereby a Club or an Association attached with the criteria of profitability, would be covered and therefore, would be amenable to the service tax. 11. It is further contended that the explanation, which was introduced w.e.f. 1st May 2006 to Section 65 of the Finance Act, which provides for the purpose of this particular section what would mean to be taxable service and would include any taxable service provided or to be provided by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof, for cash, deferred payment or any other valuable consideration. This explanation would also bring the respondent-federation within the definition of Section 65 of the Finance Act. 12. Learned advocate has further contended that considering the activities undertaken by the federation and that the federation and its each and every individual members are the different and distinct legal entities in the eyes of law, would therefore be classifiable in the categories of Club's or Association's and its Members, in Section 65 of the Finance Act. 13. Having taken into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the contention raised, that the respondent - federation is collecting subscription from their members of the federation and this act of collecting member subscription would bring the federation under the ambit of Club's or Association's membership service as provided for under Section 65 of the Finance Act is already dealt with by this Court in a judgment reported in 2013 (31) S.T.R. 645 (Guj.) in case of Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd., v. Union of India, where this Court followed the judgment of Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in the matter of Ranchi Club Ltd., v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ranchi Zone, reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R. 401 (Jhar.) and concluded in paragraph No. 8 as under:-- "8. In the result, these petitions are allowed and it is hereby declared that Section 65(25a), Section 65(105) (zzze) and Section 66 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1994 as incorporated/amended by the Finance Act, 2005 to the extent that the said provisions purport to levy service tax in respect of services purportedly provided by the petitioner club to its members, to be ultra vires. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs." 14. It appears that the tribunal also proceeded to take into consideration yet another unreported judgment in S.L.P. No. 4171 of 2011 in case of Surat Textile Traders' Association v. Union of India and concluded that merely collecting the subscription from their members would not take the respondent - federation in the ambit of Section 65 of the Finance Act and by applying the said decision, CESTAT was pleased to allow the appeal of the respondent-federation. 15. In view of the settled position of law as is indicated in the judgment of CESTAT, this Court is unable to come to any other conclusion then that of the CESTAT, more particularly when the issue of considering the respondent - federation not falling in definition of Section65 of the Finance Act, merely on the basis of collecting the subscription amount, is no more res-integra. 16. During the course of submissions the issue whether the activities of the respondent - federation would be considered as an activity for promotions of agriculture and therefore, would fall in disclaimer clause, was not addressed to by Ld. advocate. Therefore, this Court would not proceed to examine the facts in a Tax Appeal more particularly considering the smallness of the amount involved in the present appeal. 17. No other points were argued in support of the contentions and hence, there appears to be no question of law arising in this appeal. No error is pointed-out in the judgment of the CESTAT. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal, therefore, deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.