2017 (10) TMI 751 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - Cargo Handling services - respondent is engaged in Drilling, Blasting and Transporting of yellow Bound-quarrying works - Held that - The issue whether loading / unloading of limestone and rejects in mining area would fall under Cargo handling services is covered by the judgement in the appellant s own case Commissioner Vs Thriveni Earthmovers 2017 (1) TMI 717 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that one year time is taken by the appellant to file this appeal for which there is no satisfactory explanation is given - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the activities undertaken by the respondent are liable for payment of service tax under Cargo Handling Services.
- Whether the loading/unloading of limestone and rejects in the mining area falls under Cargo Handling Services.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The respondents were awarded a Work Order for drilling, blasting, and transporting activities, which the department alleged to be in the nature of Cargo Handling Services, demanding service tax. The department issued show cause notices proposing service tax payment of &8377; 90,76,861 along with interest and penalties. The adjudication orders confirmed the demands, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals filed by the respondent, setting aside the impugned order. The department appealed against the Commissioner's decision.

Issue 2:
The respondent's counsel argued that the predominant nature of the activities was transportation of waste/ores to specified locations in the mines, which should not be classified as Cargo Handling Services. Citing previous tribunal decisions and case laws, the counsel contended that the movement of limestone and rejects in the mining area falls under 'mining of mineral, oil, gas' and not under Cargo Handling Services. The Tribunal, considering the precedents and the appellant's own case law, Commissioner Vs Thriveni Earthmovers, concluded that the loading/unloading of limestone and rejects in the mining area does not qualify as Cargo Handling Services.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeals, relying on previous judgments and finding no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. The loading/unloading activities in the mining area were not considered as falling under Cargo Handling Services, as established by relevant case laws and precedents.