2018 (1) TMI 492 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - Cargo Handling Services - Held that - Tribunal in the case of Singh Transporters, M/s Sardar Roadlines, Shri Govind Constructions and Jet Construction and Carriers Versus Commissioner of Customs & Service Tax, Raipur and Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal 2016 (9) TMI 241 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has decided the bunch of appeal, wherein the present appellant was also a party. The Tribunal has held that the services provided to M/s. SECL pursuant to the agreement, should not fall under the taxable category of Cargo Handling Service. Supply of tangible goods service - Held that - the submissions of the appellant regarding payment of tax under the taxable category of Cargo Handling Service has not been discussed by the adjudicating authority - matter should go back to the original authority for a proper fact finding with regard to payment of Service Tax as claimed by the appellant. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of services under Cargo Handling Service
2. Tax liability for hiring out bulldozer
3. Confirmation of Service Tax demand for supply of tangible goods

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of services under Cargo Handling Service
The appeal challenged an order confirming a Service Tax demand on the appellant for activities related to coal transportation for South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. The appellant argued that a previous Tribunal decision had established that the services provided should not be classified under Cargo Handling Service. The Tribunal concurred with this argument, citing the earlier decision and the subsequent Supreme Court validation. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the Service Tax demand under Cargo Handling Service was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

Issue 2: Tax liability for hiring out bulldozer
The appellant contended that they had already discharged their Service Tax liability under Cargo Handling Service for hiring out a bulldozer. However, this submission was not considered by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had not discussed this aspect and decided to remand the matter back to the original authority for proper fact-finding. The Tribunal directed the original authority to consider the appellant's submissions regarding the payment of Service Tax under Cargo Handling Service. If satisfied, the benefit of such payment should be extended to the appellant.

Issue 3: Confirmation of Service Tax demand for supply of tangible goods
The impugned order also confirmed a demand for supply of tangible goods services provided by the appellant. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the Service Tax demand under Cargo Handling Service impacted this aspect as well. The matter concerning the supply of tangible goods services was remanded to the original authority for reconsideration in light of the appellant's payment under the Cargo Handling Service category.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the Service Tax demand under Cargo Handling Service, and remanded the issue of supply of tangible goods services back to the original authority for further consideration. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper fact-finding and consideration of the appellant's submissions regarding tax liabilities.