2024 (6) TMI 86 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of service - transportation of coal from the pit heads (mining areas) to the railway sidings - mining services or not - Failure to assess and discharge the service tax liability in the category of 'mining service' - recovery alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT - The issue is no more resintegra. It has already been decided by this Tribunal in M/S. ARJUNA CARRIERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.S.T., RAIPUR 2014 (11) TMI 1048 - CESTAT NEW DELHI in favour of assessee answering the above question in negative. Prior both these decisions, this tribunal in a matter titled as SINGH TRANSPORTERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR 2012 (7) TMI 566 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI it has held that the definition of mining services has no nexus with the transport of mined goods (coal). The said activity is more appropriately classifiable under GTA services rather than mining services. The decision of this Tribunal in Singh Transporter case has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision as relied upon by the appellant. The decision of M/S. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, BBSR-I 2019 (7) TMI 1803 - CESTAT KOLKATA as relied upon by the department is not found applicable to the facts of present circumstances as in that case department had alleged the activity of transportation of coal from pit heads to railway siding as an activity of goods transport agency since the Tribunal found that there was no consignment note issued by the transporter in the said case that the said allegation of department was set aside. In the present case, department has alleged the same activity as an activity of mining services. The order under challenge is passed under sheer violation of the previous decisions on the same issue. The order is, therefore, an act of judicial in-discipline. The order under challenge is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Alleged failure to declare entire amount received for mining services, imposition of penalty under various sections of the Finance Act.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI heard the case where the appellant was alleged to have not declared the full amount received for mining services, specifically coal transportation charges, resulting in a service tax liability. The Department proposed recovery of the amount along with interest and imposed penalties under relevant sections of the Finance Act. The appellant challenged this before the Tribunal.

The main issue in the case was whether the transportation of coal from mining areas to railway sidings falls under the category of mining services, as alleged by the Department and confirmed in the order under challenge.

The appellant argued that the transportation of coal should be classified under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services, which are subject to service tax under reverse charge mechanism at the end of the service recipient. They cited relevant decisions in their favor, including one by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The appellant contended that the demand against them was incorrect as SECL had already paid the tax liability for the services provided.

On the other hand, the Department relied on a decision by the Tribunal Kolkata bench, stating that the issuance of Consignment Notes is essential for the service of transport under GTA. They argued that the demand was rightly confirmed and requested the appeal to be dismissed.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal referred to previous decisions in similar cases where it was held that the transport of mined goods like coal should be classified under GTA services rather than mining services. The Tribunal found that the order under challenge was passed in violation of previous decisions and set it aside, allowing the appeal.