2014 (7) TMI 323 - AT - Service Tax

GTA service or Cargo handling service - activity of unloading fertilizers from the vessels transporting them to the warehouse of Indian Potash Ltd. (IPL) packing them in 50 Kg bags in the warehouse and thereafter transportation of fertilizers to railway sidings for delivery to the destination - appellant/IPL have discharged service tax liability as GTA service receiver - On packing activity appellant has paid service tax under cargo handling service - denial of 75% abatement availed by the appellant during the period in respect of GTA service - Held that - amendment of definition of cargo handling service which has a consequence on the demand has not been considered by the Commissioner probably because there was no defence put up on behalf of the appellant. Further there were CBEC Circulars issued clarifying as to which activity is to be considered as cargo handling and which activity has to be considered as GTA service which were also not considered. Moreover there is a finding by the Commissioner that the contract is composite. On going through the records and the billing process adopted by the appellant it appears that the contract cannot be exactly called a composite contract. - there were two separate contracts for handling and transportation and stevedoring - The packing aspect has no handling and that has been treated separately by the appellant and transportation is in any case a separate contract. Therefore the action of the department in clubbing both under one contract is not correct since the whole case of the department is that the entire activity is to be treated as cargo handling and therefore the fact that there are two contracts makes vital difference to the issue - appellant did not participate in the litigation before the original authority we consider that in the interest of justice the appellant should be given another opportunity since on a prima facie basis we find that the appellants have paid taxes which according to them is correct - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Service tax liability for cargo handling services, applicability of abatement, composite contract interpretation, ex-parte proceedings, amendment of definition of cargo handling service, CBEC Circulars clarification, segregation of activities for tax purposes.

Cargo Handling Service Tax Liability: The appellant was involved in unloading, transporting, packing, and delivering fertilizers, leading to a service tax demand of over &8377;6.26 crores for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2009. The appellant argued that the transportation activities were already taxed as GTA service, and packing was taxed separately under cargo handling service. The issue arose from the denial of 75% abatement for GTA service, which the appellant claimed was a misinterpretation by the Commissioner.

Composite Contract Interpretation: The appellant contended that the contract should not be considered composite as separate rates and bills were issued for packing, transportation, and unloading activities. The Commissioner's view of a composite contract was challenged based on the appellant's billing process, which indicated separate contracts for handling, transportation, and stevedoring. The appellant emphasized that the packing activity was distinct and should not be clubbed with cargo handling for tax purposes.

Ex-Parte Proceedings and Remand: The Tribunal noted that the proceedings before the Commissioner were ex-parte, but no valid reason was presented for the appellant's non-participation. Despite this, the Tribunal decided to hear the appeal without predeposit. Considering the lack of defense during the initial proceedings, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the case to the original authority for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of natural justice principles.

Amendment of Definition and CBEC Circulars: The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner did not consider the amendment in the definition of cargo handling service, which occurred in 2008, impacting the demand raised. Additionally, CBEC Circulars clarifying activities under cargo handling and GTA service were not taken into account. These aspects were deemed crucial for a comprehensive evaluation of the case.

Segregation of Activities for Tax Purposes: The appellant's argument that there were separate contracts for handling, transportation, and packing was considered significant in determining the tax liability. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's assertion that the packing activity was distinct and should be treated separately. The presence of two contracts according to the appellant was deemed vital in distinguishing between cargo handling and other services.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of the appellant's cooperation in the proceedings. The decision was made to uphold principles of natural justice and provide the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case.