2017 (10) TMI 288 - AT - Service Tax

Cargo Handling Services - activities of loading and unloading for transportation of lime stone/ screen earth / rejected stones etc. from the mines of M/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., situated at various places and also at their own mines on contract basis - Held that - The issue whether loading/unloading of limestone and rejects in mining area would fall under Cargo handling services is covered by the judgment in the appellant s own case Commissioner Vs. Thriveni Earthmovers 2017 (1) TMI 717 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that the services are not in the nature of Cargo Handling Services - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Determination of whether loading and unloading activities for transportation of materials from mines constitute Cargo Handling Services for service tax liability.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the nature of activities carried out by the respondent, which included loading and unloading for transportation of materials from mines on a contract basis. The department contended that these activities fell under Cargo Handling Services, making the respondent liable for service tax.

2. The department issued show cause notices proposing the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties, which were confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Subsequently, the respondent appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeals and set aside the adjudication order, leading to the department filing the present appeal.

3. The department, represented by the learned AR, reiterated the grounds of appeal, while the respondent's counsel argued that the predominant nature of the activities was transportation of waste/ores within the mines or up to the factory, relying on precedents such as the Tribunal's Final Order and other relevant judgments.

4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered the issue of whether loading and unloading of materials in the mining area constituted Cargo Handling Services. The Tribunal referenced the judgments cited by the respondent's counsel and the appellant's own case, Commissioner Vs. Thriveni Earthmovers, to conclude that the activities did not fall under Cargo Handling Services.

5. Based on the precedents and legal interpretations presented, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the department's appeal, thereby upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondent.

6. The judgment was delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, with Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial), and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) presiding over the case. The order was pronounced in open court, concluding the legal proceedings on the matter.