2018 (4) TMI 848 - AT - Service Tax

Scope of SCN - Cargo Handling Services - services of shifting and transportation of coal within the mining area - Held that - the SCN in this case was issued, seeking confirmation of Service Tax demand under cargo handling service, whereas both the authorities below have changed the classification of service and confirmed the Service Tax demand under different head of service i.e. mining service - It is evident that the authorities below have traveled beyond the scope of the SCN, which is not sustainable as per the settled principles of law enunciated by the judicial forum - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of services provided by the appellant within the mining area under different heads of service for Service Tax demand.

Analysis:
The appeal was against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of services provided by the appellant within the mining area. The Department interpreted the services as falling under the taxable category of cargo handling service, leading to a show cause notice for Service Tax demand. However, the authorities classified the service under mining service, deviating from the show cause notice. The appellant argued that the demand cannot be sustained as it went beyond the scope of the notice and that the recipient of the service had already deposited service tax under the goods transport agency service. The appellant also relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support their argument.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant provided transportation services of coal within the mining area to a specific entity, which had already paid service tax under goods transport agency service. The show cause notice sought confirmation of Service Tax demand under cargo handling service, but the authorities classified it under mining service, exceeding the notice's scope. The Tribunal emphasized that authorities should only assess the proposals in the show cause notice and cannot change the classification of service without proper grounds. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment cited by the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the issue of classification was settled and that the service should have been under GTA service. As a result, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the scope of show cause notices and established principles of law while determining the classification of services for Service Tax demand. The reliance on a previous Supreme Court judgment strengthened the appellant's argument, leading to the appeal being allowed. The judgment serves as a reminder for authorities to follow due process and legal precedents when making such determinations to ensure fairness and consistency in tax assessments.