2023 (4) TMI 1022 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - cargo handling service for the period 2007-2008 to 2012-2013 - mining service for the period post 01.06.2007 - HELD THAT - The issue that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court in Singh Transporters 2012 (7) TMI 566 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI was whether coal transported from pitheads of the mines to the railway sidings would fall within the taxable service defined under section 65 (105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act. The Supreme Court held that the activity would appropriately be classified under the head transport of goods by road service and the activity does not involve any service in relation to mining of mineral as contemplated under section 65(105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act. The Supreme Court also held that the definition of mines has no apparent nexus with the activity undertaken under the service rendered. It would be seen that the Supreme Court categorically held that the activity undertaken by the appellant would fall under the head transportation of goods by road service . The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, justified in holding that the appellant had not undertaken the activity of mining service w.e.f. 01.06.2007. The Commissioner (Appeal) is also justified in holding that these activities undertaken by the appellant prior to 01.06.2007 would not fall under the category of cargo handling service . This is for the reason that the Supreme Court categorically held that the activity undertaken by the appellant would fall under the heading transport of goods by road service - The appellant had, therefore, not provided cargo handling service prior to 01.06.2007 under section 65(23) of the Finance Act. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves determining whether the appellant provided "cargo handling service" for the period 2007-2008 to 2012-2013 and "mining service" for the period post 01.06.2007.

Cargo Handling Service Issue:
The Commissioner filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. The Supreme Court's decision in Singh Transporters case was relied upon, where it was held that transporting coal from pitheads to railway sidings falls under "transport of goods by road service" and not under "mining of mineral" service. The Supreme Court clarified that the definition of "mines" does not have a direct connection with the activity undertaken. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that the appellant did not provide mining service from 01.06.2007 onwards.

Mining Service Issue:
The activities undertaken by the appellant before 01.06.2007 were also considered. The Supreme Court's ruling indicated that these activities should be classified under "transport of goods by road service" rather than "cargo handling service." Consequently, it was determined that the appellant did not provide cargo handling service before 01.06.2007 as per section 65(23) of the Finance Act.

Conclusion:
The judgment dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant did not provide cargo handling service or mining service as per the relevant provisions.