2017 (2) TMI 103 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of service - loading agreement for loading of coal from coal face into tipper trucks - transportation agreement for movement of coal from coal face to railway siding or dump yard within the mining area - whether the services are classified as mining services or GTA services? - Held that - similar issue came for decision by the Tribunal with reference to contract with SECFL by other service providers. In Arjuna Carriers Pvt. Limited 2014 (11) TMI 1048 - CESTAT NEW DELHI the Tribunal held that service is not classifiable under mining service, as held by the Revenue - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax liability on transportation charges within a mine under GTA services.

Analysis:
The appeals addressed the service tax liability of the appellants for services provided under agreements with SECFL. The agreements involved loading coal into tipper trucks and transporting coal within the mining area. The appellants had paid service tax under "mining services" for loading charges but disputed the tax liability on transportation charges. The Revenue demanded service tax on transportation charges under "mining services" and imposed penalties. The appellants argued that transportation within the mine should be taxed under GTA services, as SECFL had already paid service tax under reverse charge basis. They cited precedents where the Tribunal ruled in favor of taxing coal transportation under GTA services. The Revenue disagreed with these arguments.

The Tribunal considered previous decisions involving similar agreements with SECFL by other service providers. In a specific case, the Tribunal ruled that transportation of coal within the mine should be classified under GTA services, not mining services as claimed by the Revenue. Citing another recent decision, the Tribunal confirmed that transport of coal from pit head to railway siding should be classified under GTA services. Based on these precedents and settled issues, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's position. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the classification of transportation charges within a mine under GTA services based on established precedents. The decision highlighted the importance of consistent interpretation and application of tax classifications in similar factual scenarios. The ruling provided clarity on service tax liability for coal transportation services, emphasizing the significance of past decisions in guiding current judgments.