2018 (3) TMI 1689 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - contract for transportation of bricks and for accomplishing the said purposes - Cargo handling service or GTA Service? - Held that - The service provider M/s. Bharat Refractory s Ltd. has awarded the contract for transportation of bricks and for accomplishing the said purposes, the appellant undertook the activities of loading, unloading, etc. Since the principal objective of the contract was for transportation of goods, the same should appropriately fall under the GTA service and not under cargo handling service. In this case, the appellant was awarded with the work order for application of Gunning Mass in steel melting process, which has basically meant for maintenance of furnace. Thus, such activities are in the nature of management, maintenance or repair service, as defined under Section 65(64) of the Act. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of services as cargo handling service or GTA service, and classification of activities as Business Auxiliary Service or Management, Maintenance, or Repair Service.

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the Revenue appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Raipur. The main contention was regarding the classification of services provided by the respondent to its service receiver. The Revenue argued that the services should be classified as cargo handling service and Business Auxiliary Service, rather than the classifications made by the Commissioner (Appeals) under GTA Service and Management, Maintenance, or Repair Service, respectively. The Tribunal examined the case records and found that the contract awarded to the appellant for transportation of goods should fall under GTA service due to the principal objective being transportation. The Tribunal referred to a clarification by C.B.E. & C. stating that when a service provider issues a consignment note for transportation of goods inclusive of packing, it should be treated as GTA service. Regarding the activities of applying Gunning Mass in the steel melting shop, the Tribunal determined them to be in the nature of management, maintenance, or repair service as defined under the Act, not business auxiliary service as contended by Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of Revenue.