2016 (9) TMI 372 - AT - Service Tax

Invokation of extended period of limitation - Demand - transportation of mine coal from pit head to railway siding within the mining area - whether to be considered as goods transport agency service as per appellant or cargo handling service as per Revenue - Held that - inasmuch as in other case of identical situate appellants involving the same issue and identical contract with M/s. SECL, the Tribunal had held that the activities of the assessee would amount to providing services, falling under goods transport agency services. Therefore, by following the said decision, the impugned orders are set aside. In as much as the assessee s appeal has been allowed on merits, the Revenue s appeal, which is against that part of the order-in-appeal vide which benefit of time bar and cum-duty price has been extended to the assessee is required to be rejected. - Appeals disposed of

Summary

Issues: Dispute over classification of services as goods transport agency or cargo handling.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the appeals by the assessee and Revenue were disposed of together as they arose from the same order. The case involved M/s. A K Transport entering into a contract with M/s. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. for transporting mine coal within the mining area. The recipient discharged the service tax liability on reverse charge basis. Revenue contended that the services were related to cargo handling, issuing a notice proposing demand of duty. The original adjudicating authority's order was partly upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), who granted a time bar benefit but upheld the order on merits, directing re-quantification of demand within limitation and treating the entire consideration as cum-tax value. Both assessee and Revenue appealed this decision.

The core legal issue revolved around whether transporting goods from pit head to Railway siding within the mining area constituted goods transport agency services or cargo handling. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving M/s. V N Transport vs. CCE, Raipur, where a similar situation arose with M/s. SECL. In that case, the Tribunal had decided that such activities amounted to providing goods transport agency services, not mining services. Following this precedent, the Tribunal in the present case set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential relief for the appellants.

As the assessee's appeal was allowed on merits, the Revenue's appeal against the extension of time bar benefit and cum-duty price to the assessee was rejected by the Tribunal. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.