Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1281 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - cargo handling services or GTA Services? - appellant was engaged by M/s Northern Coal Fields Ltd. for movement of coal within the mine premises, in terms of the contract entered into between the two - extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that - The matter was remanded with specific directions to find out as to whether same activity has already discharged tax liability in the hands of M/s Northern Coal Fields Ltd. in which case no duty confirmation against the appellant would arise. However, the adjudicating authority instead of following the said directions of the Tribunal went against the same and confirmed the demand by observing that tax payment by the Northern Coal Filed Ltd. by treating the same activity as GTA Services is of no relevance. We are of the view that the said findings of the Commissioner are outside the directions of the Tribunal, with which he was bound. Time limitation - Held that - Except for the fact that appellant had not disclosed the said activity to the revenue, no evidence reflecting upon any malafide on the part of the appellant stands produced by revenue. The demand for the periods 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2007 stands raised by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 10.10.2007 and for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2008 stands raised by show cause notice dated 14.10.2008 i.e. by invocation of the longer period - the disputed issue was the subject matter of various assessee s similarly situate, who entered into contract with M/s Northern or Southern or Central Coal Fields and the identical activities were subject matter of litigation before the various levels. Infact some of the cases travelled up to Tribunal and finally it was held that said activity cannot be considered to be Cargo Handling Service and the same would get covered by GTA Services - When an issue is subject matter of litigation in respect of various parties, located all over India, it cannot be held that there was malafide intention on the part of one assessee - demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Classification of service - Cargo Handling Services or Goods Transport Agency Services Applicability of extended period of limitation Analysis: 1. Classification of service - Cargo Handling Services or Goods Transport Agency Services: The appellant was engaged by M/s Northern Coal Fields Ltd. for the movement of coal within the mine premises. The Revenue contended that the activity falls under "Cargo Handling Services" and initiated proceedings against the appellant. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands, interest, and penalties. The Tribunal upheld the classification under "Cargo Handling Services" but considered that since the same services were already taxed in the hands of M/s Northern Coal Fields Ltd. as "Goods Transport Agency Services," the appellant should not be taxed again. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for further consideration. 2. Applicability of extended period of limitation: The Commissioner, in the remand proceedings, disregarded the Tribunal's directions and confirmed the demand against the appellant, stating that the tax payment by M/s Northern Coal Fields Ltd. under reverse charge basis is irrelevant. The Commissioner also reiterated that the extended period of limitation would be available since the appellant did not inform the revenue. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of malafide on the part of the appellant. The disputed issue was litigated by various similarly situated parties, and it was held in other cases that the activity should be classified under Goods Transport Agency Services. The Tribunal agreed that the demand was barred by limitation and could not be upheld. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, considering that the demand was not sustainable due to the classification of services and the issue of limitation. The Tribunal emphasized that even if a part of the demand fell within the limitation period, it would not be sustainable since M/s Northern Coal Fields Ltd. had already discharged the duty liability for the same activity.
|