2012 (4) TMI 253 - AT - Service Tax

Learned Counsel says that reading of para 9 of the adjudication order demonstrates that the activity carried out by the appellant was within the mining area and the goods transported within mining area cannot be called as cargo handling - To call an activity to be cargo handling service there should be an activity of movement of cargo from one place to another place without any internal movement within the mining area - Held that movement of the excavated iron within the mining area from one place to another that operation cannot be called as cargo handling service - Appeals are disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of whether the appellant's activity falls under cargo handling service.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the classification of the appellant's activity as cargo handling service. The appellant argued that the activity carried out within the mining area did not constitute cargo handling, citing a contract and a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand. On the other hand, the Revenue representative contended that the activity squarely fell under cargo handling service, referring to a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the record, emphasized that for an activity to be classified as cargo handling service, there must be movement of cargo from one place to another without internal movement within the mining area. The Tribunal found that the evidence showed movement of excavated iron within the mining area, leading to the conclusion that the operation did not amount to cargo handling service. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in all three appeals.

The Tribunal also addressed a delay in filing a cross objection, for which an application for condonation of delay was submitted. Since the main appeal had been resolved in favor of the appellants, both the cross objection and condonation applications were dismissed. As a result, all three appeals, along with the cross objection and condonation applications, were disposed of accordingly by the Tribunal.