2017 (9) TMI 1494 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction - Whether the appellant would fall under the jurisdiction of Guntur Commissionerate or Hyderabad Commissionerate for service tax matters? - Held that - Appellant may well have taken registration for their Miryalaguda set up. However, it is not the case that they had taken centralized registration at Miryalaguda for all their activities in various places, including those at Krishnapuram Limestone Mines, or for that matter, at Miryalaguda for both their offices including the one at Jaggaiahpet - proceedings are not hit by jurisdiction. Classification of service - appellants herein, were engaged in transportation, excavation and loading of lime stone in the mines belonging to cement factories - cargo handling services or mining services? - Held that - the appellant though involved in loading and unloading activities, nonetheless these are in relation to the mining activity in the Krishnapuram Mines of the service recipient - In the case of CCE&C, Bhubaneswar vs. B.K. Thakkar 2007 (10) TMI 147 - CESTAT, KOLKATA , it was held that activities of excavation, transportation and feeding of non ores to crushing plants for processing are primarily in the nature of mining and not covered under cargo handling services - the services rendered by the appellant cannot be brought under the fold of cargo handling services. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Guntur Commissionerate vs. Hyderabad Commissionerate.
2. Classification of services rendered by the appellant: Cargo Handling Services vs. Mining Services.
3. Applicability of the limitation period for the proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Guntur Commissionerate vs. Hyderabad Commissionerate:

The appellant contended that the order suffers from a lack of jurisdiction, arguing that their office and business were situated in Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, and that they had taken registration under the category of Mining activity in the Miryalaguda Range. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's activities were performed at the Krishnapuram Limestone Mines, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Guntur Commissionerate. The contract with India Cements Limited was addressed to an office in Jaggaiahpet, within Guntur's jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the appellant should have taken a separate service tax registration in Guntur Commissionerate for activities at Krishnapuram Mines, thus rejecting the jurisdictional objection.

2. Classification of Services Rendered by the Appellant:

The core issue was whether the services rendered by the appellant were classifiable under cargo handling services or mining services. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's activities included loading, unloading, and transporting limestone within the Krishnapuram limestone mine. The Tribunal referred to the definition of cargo handling services under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, which includes loading, unloading, packing, or unpacking of cargo but excludes mere transportation of goods.

The Tribunal also considered the definition of mining services, which includes services related to mining of mineral, oil, or gas. Citing the case of Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Salem, the Tribunal noted that loading and transportation of limestone within the mining area are activities covered by mining services. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's activities were primarily related to mining and not cargo handling, as the dominant activity was the movement and processing of limestone within the mining area.

3. Applicability of the Limitation Period:

The appellant argued that the proceedings were hit by limitation. However, since the Tribunal decided the case on merits, it did not delve into the issue of limitation. The Tribunal's decision to classify the services under mining services rather than cargo handling services rendered the question of limitation moot.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal held that the appellant's activities were correctly classifiable under mining services and not cargo handling services. Consequently, the impugned order classifying the services as cargo handling services and confirming the demand of ?1,40,65,267/- along with interest and penalties was set aside. The appeal was allowed on merits, and the jurisdictional and limitation issues were not further considered.

Final Judgment:

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the Court on the conclusion of the hearing.

← Previous Next →