2014 (11) TMI 1048 - AT - Service Tax

Classification- Transportation of coal - Whether classifiable under Cargo Handling Service or GTA - Held that Service tax on the impugned service is paid by M/s. SECL under GTA supports the appellants contention that the service is covered under GTA service and not under Cargo Handling Service. The agreement entered by appellant with M/s. SECL is also clearly for transport of coal. Also, the Commissioner vide several orders has also held that the said service is covered under GTA services. Therefore, the impugned service is not classifiable as Cargo Handling Service as per the decision taken by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Narayan Builders 2013 (9) TMI 146 - CESTAT NEW DELHI, where it was held that mere handling of coal and movement of said goods from railway wagon to the site of thermal power station through the motor vehicle or any other means of transportation involved in such handling would not constitute Cargo Handling Service and also in the case of Anupama Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur 2012 (5) TMI 290 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI, that just bringing coal to railway siding would not be covered by Cargo Handling Service. - Decided in favour of appellent

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of services provided by the appellants as Cargo Handling Service for service tax liability.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the classification of services provided by the appellants for determining their service tax liability. The Order-in-Original confirmed a service tax demand against the appellants for allegedly loading and unloading wagons for a specific company, thus falling under Cargo Handling Service. The appellants argued that they were engaged in coal transportation, not Cargo Handling Service, as evidenced by their work order agreement with another entity. They highlighted that the service tax for a similar service was deposited under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) by that entity. The appellants also contended that the demand was time-barred and cited Tribunal judgments supporting their stance.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, decided to dispose of the appeal without pre-deposit due to the issue being extensively argued and supported by judicial precedents. They noted that the service tax for the impugned service was paid under GTA by the entity receiving the service, reinforcing the appellants' position. The agreement between the parties clearly indicated transportation of coal, not cargo handling. Referring to previous orders, the Tribunal found that similar services provided to the same entity were classified under GTA services, not Cargo Handling Service. Citing precedents like M/s. Narayan Builders and Anupama Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that mere handling and transportation of coal did not constitute Cargo Handling Service.

In light of the arguments and precedents presented, the Tribunal held that the service provided by the appellants did not fall under Cargo Handling Service. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Order-in-Original confirming the service tax demand was set aside.