2017 (9) TMI 279 - AT - Service Tax

Cargo Handling Service - Held that - part of the demand stands admitted by the Appellants, and towards quantification of the breakup the learned counsel for the Appellants has submitted a certificate from the Chartered Accountant certifying the breakup of value of Service Tax into the various activities carried by the Appellants. Since the break up was not available with the adjudicating authority, we find it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the demand Demand of tax - activity of stacking materials within the factory premises for SAIL as well as movement of materials within the factory - Held that - the Tribunal s decision in the case of Gajananda Agarwal 2008 (6) TMI 163 - CESTAT KOLKATA will be applicable, where it was held that any activity incidental to freight of cargo is liable to be taxed under cargo handling service - demand set aside. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 04/ST/BBSR-II/2013 dated 18.01.2013
- Service Tax demand for the period 16.08.2002 to 31.10.2004
- Nature of services provided to Rourkela Steel Plant
- Confirmation of Service Tax demand by original authority and Commissioner (Appeals)
- Applicability of Cargo Handling Service definition
- Remand for re-quantification of demand

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 04/ST/BBSR-II/2013 dated 18.01.2013 by the Appellants concerning a Service Tax demand for the period 16.08.2002 to 31.10.2004. The Appellants provided services to Rourkela Steel Plant, leading to a show cause notice for Service Tax on the consideration received under the category of Cargo Handling Service. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the Service Tax demand. The Appellants contended that part of the demand related to loading/unloading activities, for which they admitted liability. However, they disputed the demand for stacking and moving materials within the factory premises of the plant, arguing it did not fall under Cargo Handling Services as per a Tribunal decision in a similar case.

During the hearing, the Appellants' counsel submitted a certificate from a Chartered Accountant detailing the breakup of the Service Tax value for different activities. As this breakdown was not available to the adjudicating authority, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter for re-quantification of the demand. Regarding the activity of stacking and moving materials within the factory premises, the Tribunal applied the decision from a previous case, emphasizing that for taxation under Cargo Handling Service, the service provided must be integrally connected with cargo handling. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the demand related to this activity but remanded the case for quantification of the overall demand by the original adjudicating authority after providing the Appellants with an opportunity to present their case and submit the Chartered Accountant's certificate.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal, with the impugned order being set aside to the extent of the demand pertaining to stacking and moving materials within the factory premises. The matter was remanded for re-quantification of the demand, ensuring the Appellants had a fair opportunity to present their case and provide necessary documentation.