2018 (11) TMI 571 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - Cargo handling services/mining services - services of hiring of pay loader and tripper for loading and transport of the coal from different sidings including mechanically unloading and finished goods in mine areas - Held that - Identical issue decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR VERSUS SINGH TRANSPORTERS 2017 (7) TMI 494 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that A mine is not to be understood necessarily in respect of pit-heads of the mining area or the excavation or drilling underground, as may be, but also to the peripheral area on the surface. The said definition has no apparent nexus with the activity undertaken and the service rendered - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of services under Cargo Handling Service and Mining Services for the period 01/04/2007 to 31/05/2007 and from 01/06/2007 onwards.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was providing taxable services under the category of transport of goods by road. The department contended that the services provided, including loading and transport of coal, fell under Cargo Handling Service and Mining Services, requiring payment of service tax.

2. The appellant argued that the transport of coal from pit heads to railway sidings and handling of coal in the mining area should be classified under Goods Transport Agency Services, not Cargo Handling or mining services. This argument was supported by a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner Central Excise & ST, Raipur vs. Singh Transporters.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the Supreme Court's decision and found that the activity of transporting coal within mining areas should be classified under the head 'transportation of goods by road service' rather than as a service related to mining of mineral, oil, or gas. The definition of 'mines' under the Mines Act, 1952 was also considered, concluding that it did not align with the services provided by the appellant.

4. Based on the Supreme Court's judgment and the analysis of the services provided by the appellant, the Tribunal found no merit in the department's classification of services under Cargo Handling Service and Mining Services. Consequently, the impugned order demanding service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.