2018 (6) TMI 386 - AT - Service Tax

Cargo handling service - Pig Iron Handling in Corex I II in factory of JSW Steel Ltd. - Granulated Dry Slag Shifting in factor of JSW Steel Ltd. - Loading Shifting of pellets from pellet plant to RMHS yard within factory - Loading shifting of pig iron within factory - whether the said services fall within the purview of Cargo Handling Services or not?- Held that - These activities involved only temporary handling of the goods and shifting them from one place to another within the factory and as such, by no stretch of imagination come under the Cargo Handling Services as no transportation is involved in respect of the services - reliance placed in the case of Gaytri Construction Co. vs. CCE 2011 (9) TMI 481 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI . Also, laying of sheet on machinery cannot be equated to construction activity. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of services provided by the appellants in relation to JSW Steel Ltd.
2. Liability for service tax on various activities under Cargo Handling Services and Construction Service.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 78.
4. Interpretation of classification and taxability of activities.
5. Refund of excess appropriated amount.

Classification of Services:
The appellants engaged in activities at JSW Steel Ltd., with specific services classified under different categories. While they accepted liability for one activity, the appellate authority set aside tax liability for other activities, citing various legal provisions and precedents.

Liability for Service Tax:
The appellants contested the duty demand for certain activities under Cargo Handling Services and Construction Service, arguing that these activities were part of manufacturing processes and not subject to service tax. They referenced legal cases to support their stance, emphasizing that the activities did not involve transportation and should not be classified as Cargo Handling Services.

Imposition of Penalty:
Regarding the penalty under Section 78, the appellants asserted no deliberate suppression of facts or mala fide intentions, claiming reasonable cause under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. They sought relief from penalty based on the interpretation of classification and taxability of the activities, supported by legal precedents and cases.

Interpretation of Taxability:
The Tribunal analyzed the activities at issue, concluding that temporary handling and shifting of goods within the factory did not fall under Cargo Handling Services. Citing legal judgments, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that laying sheets on machinery did not constitute construction activity. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Refund of Excess Amount:
Additionally, the appellants requested a refund of the excess amount, arguing that the appropriated sum should be returned. The Tribunal's decision, based on the arguments presented and legal interpretations, provided relief to the appellants on various issues, including liability for service tax and penalty imposition.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal aspects, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision on each issue involved in the case.