2007 (10) TMI 147 - AT - Service Tax

Activity of excavation, transporation & feeding of iron ores to the hilltop crusher plant for further processing of iron ore may incidentally involve some loading and unloading the same cannot be covered under cargo handling service - uphold the impugned OIA and we dismiss the Departmental Appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of activities as 'cargo handling service' or 'mining service'.
2. Taxability of activities undertaken by the respondents.
3. Interpretation of the term 'cargo handling service'.
4. Application of Section 65A(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the classification and taxability of activities undertaken by the respondents under contracts with M/s. S.A.I.L. The Original Authority had classified the activities as 'cargo handling service,' leading to a duty-demand. The lower Appellate Authority set aside the Order-in-Original, prompting the Department to file an appeal. The Department argued that the term 'cargo' includes goods for transportation, encompassing services like loading and unloading, thus falling under 'cargo handling services.' On the contrary, the respondents contended that their activities should be classified as 'mining service,' not taxable until a later date.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the respondents' activities primarily involved excavation, transportation, and feeding of iron ore, with incidental loading and unloading. Referring to a previous order, the Tribunal defined 'cargo handling service' to include specific activities related to freight transportation. The Tribunal concluded that the activities in question were primarily mining-related, not fitting the definition of 'cargo handling service.' Therefore, the gross amount received by the respondents was not chargeable to Service Tax under that heading.

The respondents' advocate highlighted that the contracts were composite in nature, involving mining and transportation, not solely cargo handling. He referenced Section 65A(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, which prohibits splitting a composite contract and requires classification based on its essential character. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the essential character of the services provided was mining/production of iron ore, not cargo handling.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, dismissing the Departmental Appeal and disposing of the Cross Objection. The decision was based on the understanding that the activities were primarily mining-related, with incidental loading and unloading, thus not falling under the category of 'cargo handling service.' The judgment was pronounced on 24-10-2007 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, with detailed reasoning provided by the members involved.